Veeky Forums and keto

fuck meme diets, count calories

you can eat the same foods you like to eat just in smaller, cataloged quantities

a fat fuck quitting their diet of greasy burgers and doritos cold turkey for something radically different isn't a smart choice. if you have willpower it will work, but if you had willpower you wouldn't be a fat fuck to begin with. the likely result is that you'll relapse hard and binge and then get disheartened and quit.

despite what i just said keto is probably the best meme diet for fat people because it allows you to slather butter on everything and eat bacon twice a day, but does that sound healthy to you?

prioritize these goals in this order

1) eat at a deficit each day (use myfitnesspal)
2) eat more protein
3) try to consume a variety of micronutrients
4) eat fewer carbs
5) don't drink the carbonated jew aka soda, pop, soft drink, whatever the fuck your culture calls it

just make sure you achieve goal #1. achieving goals #2, #3, #4, #5 will optimize the process, but remaining in a caloric deficit will turn fat user into slim user.

t. user who lost over 35 kg at 18

If your blood sugar drops too low your body will go through gluconeogenesis converting some protein into glucose for brain function.

So it is possible to function without eating carbs, but your body can still make carbs because evolution.

that video is terrible
try it, if it works for you go for it, I personally find it very hard to stick with.

>MORE FAT BURN
>Fat is utilized for energy instead of carbs

Yeah... because that's what you're fucking eating. Why do keto infographics and internet articles try to get sneaky with the word fat and try to make it out like on keto all the food you eat is ignored by your body and you're plowing through stored body fat the whole time?

Its justnot a very strict diet that fit some people who has to go balls to the walls deep into something to do it.
Its not better than any other high protein diet at weightloss

You don't need to consume carbs to get glucose. Search up the man that fasted for 388 days, without any health issues.

>4) eat fewer carbs

Not fewer carbs, better carbs

You've got to find a diet that works for you. Get some scales and download myfitnesspal and just get used to tracking what you eat for a couple of weeks. Then actively try to maintain a small calorie deficit, if you can manage this and are consistently losing a small amount of weight each week, try hitting a protein goal as well (~2g per kg lean body mass).

lmao, I've never seen so many people get so ass pained by one diet before. Is it because it actually works for a lot of people? Almost like it's too good to be true.
>calories in, calories out it's that simple!
listen you smug bastard, you will lose weight as long as you are eating under TDEE, but you might not be "healthy". Try eating 1500 cals of shit food every day and see how your body turns out.

> Try eating 1500 cals of shit food every day

It's called "keto"

Sto denying evolution. Humans have been surviving on a low carb diet since the beginning of time. Being vegan would literally be suicide before modern time.

>2017
>Keto

THE ONLY REAL KETO IS DNP YOU FAGGOT

>Low carb diet

What do you think early hominids ate? There wasn't exactly an abundance of meat.

>Source: the flintstones

loled at this.

You know how many carbs there are in a whole bag of vegetables? About 20 grams. Consuming 300g which the SAD diet recommend would be impossible.

>Origin of species by Charles Darwin
Now I know I can't take you seriously

have fun with losing so much weight you need skin reduction surgery and putting yourself at increased risk of colon cancer, op

also please stop sucking so many dicks, your father and I are worried about you

>citing paleo mom while claiming vegan diet to be more superior

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c81c/c11f992d9d7188ff1b8ac7258406c59daa3f.pdf

>The typical carbohydrate intake of ancestral humans was similar in magnitude, 45±50% of daily energy, to that in current affluent nations... the great majority of carbohydrate was derived from vegetables and fruit
>Hunter-gatherers utilize many species of fruits and vegetables, often over 100 in each locality, to provide their yearly subsistence.

>Saturated fatty acids are calculated to have provided about 6% of the average total energy intake for Paleolithic humans
>Their overall fat intake is projected at 20-25% total energy

Not that it matters to us today what people were eating thousands of years ago, but it's retarded to think they were eating bacon and coconut oil

>Be an erectus (no homo)
>On a see-food bulk
>Jamming leaves and shit in my mouth
>Realize I exceeded my total carbs, spit out root vegetables that are half my calories
>Find a rotting corpse and eat it

Almost lost my gains

I think I got decent results

I started the diet late june

all 5x5
Squat 165
Deadlift 185
Drag Curls 30lbs 5x12
Bench 130lbs

Hate to break it to you, but your body looks exactly the same and your lifts barely went up at all.

You need to make some changes.

That's 30 pounds less in the right pic? Looks exactly the same

You should cut harder man, you look the same in both pics

Well I don't know what to do DESU, it looks different to me, and I definitely couldn't squat one plate before.

I'm 6'1, I don't want to be 170 or i'll look like a skeleton

>nipples are placed differently
>External Obliques are tighter
>different core shape
>clearly bigger arms
Are you guys blind?

You made some progress but you still have weight to lose. Stop the cut when you look good, not when you hit an arbitrary weight so don't be afraid to dip below 170.

I'm only eating 1700 calories a day, I lost numbers dieting this hard and lost 18 of it in one month, if I go much harder I won't even have the energy to go to the gym.

>skin a different fucking colour

it's hard to tell what difference the lighting and angle make

You can just go longer then

speaking as someone who was in your position:

you always need to lose more weight than you think first time.

I went from 218 @ 5'11 to 170 and still didn't have abs, I thought i only had maybe 20lbs to lose and man was I wrong.

Ignore the other comments and just keep cutting, the improvement at this stage isnt really noticable until you get leaner. The visible difference between you at 180 and 170 will be more than you at 210 to 180.

Keep up the fight user

The only difference I can see is his skin is more pale now

fucking theory crafter gtfo

Jesus fucking christ this has to be bait.

Please go bench 8 pl without a spotter you literal asparagus diet cardionigger.

after doing it for couple months I noticed my sex drive was low af. erections weren't strong and few and far between. anyone else have similar issues?

did get down to around 10% bf tho

It can work but it's a shit state, literally the last adaption your body does to survive a prolonged fast. And it doesn't work any better than a regular diet, if you eat too much you'll gain weight and if you eat too little you'll lose weight.

If normal diets didn't work for you for some reason go ahead and try keto but only for a short time because it's shit for your body. Thing is if you come off it you'll need to adapt your lifestyle anyway to not bounce back so it's better to lose weight the "traditional" way.

Another ham-fisted attempt at Darwinism. The majority of people alive today consume little to no animal products, and the same could be said for a great number of our ancestors. Animal agriculture and hunting is necessary at higher latitudes because crops don't last through the winter, but near the tropics sufficient food is available year-long.

>more fat burn
Well duh you're not eating carbs. "Fat" is a nutrient, this infograph makes it seem like a weight thing which is wrong.
>high in fiber
Haha good one. You should eat a lot of greens anyway, add fruits and whole grains in a "normal" diet and you're at like triple the fiber.
>stabilized blood sugar
Well duh you're not eating carbs. That's only a good thing for insulin resistent people and keto only preventy symptoms, it doesn't actually solve the problem. Sugar spikes aren't even inherently bad, fucking potatoes have a huge GI and are all around healthy (potato-only diets are actually possible without major health problems).

Only if you consume alot of protein, otherwise your body will produce ketones instead

Yeah that's the adaption to prevent rapid muscle loss. But there will always be some protein breakdown because you just need glucose, not everything can run on ketons.

>gives one option
>says pick both
Pick none you disease ridden spastic

You only got fatter you meat eating subhuman.

Literally KYS, animals aren't worth dying for you low energy bitchtit.

>Low carb diet
>High in fiber

>vegetables and fruit
Where the hell would they get this during winter and spring?
Hell, in Europe that stuff is barely there in autumn too, if you keep in mind that pre-agricultural plants had much lower yields and were much less nutritious.
Those estimates only apply to Africa, where food is literally within arm's reach year round.
If you want to go by the science, how do you square off the fact that Europeans were selected for greater ability to catabolize fats, on a genetic level? Is a three fold increase in fat processing efficiency the marker of a primarily plant eater?
nature.com/articles/ncomms4584

>retarded assumptions galore
Simple fact is it was almost always very high plants. Neanderthales died out and only left a tiny legacy in the form of some genetic advantages, for they themselves it didn't help at all.

they could harvest wild berries in season and dry them, making them last over winter. They still do in Lappland, Siberia and Tunguska. Roseroot was also a source of vit c and fibre that could be stored year round.

True, they could. But was it enough to supply more than half of their calories for half a year?
To use the analogy you provided, re the people in Lappland and Siberia eating that many berries and roots? Or are they eating a lot of fats from dairy and meat?
This is why I don't doubt there were primarily plant eaters where the environment permitted, but in other places people had to have consumed a lot more animal foods.
For elucidation you can see how modern day survivalists tackle the issue of living off the land. This article for instance has some interesting calculations that will put things in perspective:
woodtrekker.blogspot.ro/2013/09/living-off-land-delusions-and.html

>replies to a pretty conclusive study showing that humans primarely ate carbs from plants
>posts a link about minor genetic implications
>and a blog without any scientific relevance

As a recovering fatfuck, I have to admit keto makes me very nervous. My entire family is diabetic, and I regularly get my A1C checked to make sure I'm not going down that path. The idea that you would deliberately induce what is effectively diabetes is nuts to me.

the post I responded to asked rhetorically if they could get access to vegetables and fruit in winter and spring. It being half a humans calorie intake was not mentioned.

>conclusive study
>from 1997
That science is far from settled. If you really want a sense for what these scientists are working with, and what their hypotheses are, look at this article. You'll realize that all of this is up in the air.
"...bone chemistry, especially stable isotope evidence, provides direct evidence of diets, and indicates, for the few limited studies, that Neanderthals were top-level carnivores. Two studies of Upper Palaeolithic modern humans in Europe have also indicated the significant importance of animal products in the diets, and similar evidence of the consumption of animal meat is also found in the later Mesolithic periods in Europe."
nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html

Also a direct refutation of that "pretty conclusive" study:
"Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45–65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (≥56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (≥56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22–40% of energy)."
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.short

The blog post I referenced is a simple calculation that you can do yourself in order to see just how much plant matter you would need to survive. For your sake I hope you don't get in a survival situation with those kinds of misconceptions.

Fair enough.
I wasn't clear enough that I was talking about long term nutrition.
Point taken.

How is keto high in fiber?

The only allowed vegetables are leafy greens. And those are mostly water and fiber.
Also low glycemic nuts that are high in fat tend to have a lot of fiber.

Bro, don't you know? They're all cherry-picked.

By claiming that someone's citations are cherry-picked I can smugly dismiss their argument!

Keto only "works" for fat fucks that can't put down the bacon and butter. It isn't a healthy diet by any means.

Go on a high fiber high carb WFPB vegan diet and the weight will melt off you.

uh WROOOONG, your brain works better on ketones than on glucose
because that's what happens, it's the same thing that happens when you are intermitent fasting, namely less insulin so your body prioritizes using over storing.
except none of those actually look at proper keto diets.
look at this shit
high protein diet in obese people, oh wow I wonder why it doesnt work

He gets it.

You're only going to get like 10 grams/day without going over your carb limits unless you supplement. Recommended intake (read:minimum) for men is 38 grams a day.

those are some nice links, I will go over them tomorrow and add them perhaps to pic related.

and combine them with

youtube.com/watch?v=yRELldIuZyM
sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/did-europeans-get-fat-neandertals

If they are any good. Too tired of work to do that today.

>3300 calories per day
Haha nope. They will need less than 2000. People growing up in a hunter gatherer community will have smaller bodies, less muscle mass and lower energy expenditure than a person raised to their full height potential in a society that glorifies muscle size over functional strength.

>mic the vegan
Is there even a need to continue watching

>healthy fats/oils
>fucking butter, coconut oil and other shit

>nuts/seeds/berries at the very top, only small amounts to be consumed

>avoid high carb fruits, legumes, potatoes and grains

Retarded chart. As expected by someone posting a paleo youtube video. Or is it samefagging once again?

A large swatch of keto diets are also dairy free.
Also, there is literally nothing wrong with saturated fat. You were indoctrinated to think it's going to cause heart disease. Sorry mate.
and no, a couple of flawed studies financed by big sugar and other jews aren't going to prove anything.

evolution does not stop at the brain, nor does it stop further at the diet.

Guys OP is a fat fuck that wants the easy way out and assumes keto is it.
Fuck you fatty count calories.

Wat? I think evolution did stop at your brain.

All of the foods I mentioned in the avoid or consume sparingly section are really healthy in almost any amount. Way more so than those "healthy fats", red meats and dairy. I mean how retarded do you have to be to think that steak+scrambled eggs is better than a bowl of oatmeal with berries and a mango/pineapple salad. Or a mango+lentils curry. Or a kidney beans + potato stew.

Okay, I genuinely laughed at this.

If I wanted reduced brain function
I'd ask about your liberal arts degree

literally the opposite of reality

Then why is "keto fog" a thing? You can deal with that but it requires extra effort compared to just eating normally.

Why would oats be better than meat?

Why would a bland grain food that we have had to grow and harvest be better than something delicious that we've eaten for out entire existence that can and should be taken straight from nature?

It makes sense to me that our bodies have adapted to their environment over hundreds of thousands of years. Oats were not in that environment. What sense does it make for our digestive systems to have evolved to eat something that is detrimental to it?
Here's my semi-retarded opinion on food. If it occurs naturally and is delicious, it is good for you. Fat and sugar are yum. They're yum because the human body has evolved to enjoy energy and resource rich foods more than any other. Taste is a feedback mechanism. If something tastes great it's your body saying 'eat more of this because it's good for you'.

Meanwhile vegan twigs and leaves taste boring as shit without artificial flavourings.

The real problem is abundance and processed food which abuses this feedback system and allows people to take in far more than they need. It's not normal to be able to eat grams and grams of processed, refined sugars. It's not normal to be able to eat lbs of processed meats at a time.
So, if it's something you would historically have been able to find AND it tastes great, you should eat it until satiated and you will be healthy.

Different genetic types have different tastes to reflect differences in physiology; the result of evolving in different geographic environments.
So you can't go around blanket prescribing diets with specific foods that work for everyone because we're not all the same.
So you should listen to your taste buds and let them dictate what you eat which is exactly what they've evolved to do.

because you've been stuffing your face with carbs your entire life, so you're used to using carbs for energy instead of fat. it takes a little bit of time to switch over.

you're only under the impression that oats are better than steak because you've been lied to by the government about nutrition since 1977

Hey paleobuddy. I see you got your links out. Want to pick up from the last thread?

desuarchive.org/fit/thread/42184109/#q42187463

>bland
>delicious
>pseudo science and tons of appeal to naturea
>feedback system as an indicator of healthy food

My taste buds also tell me chocolate and fast food taste good. The system was designed in the millions of years of sparsity and is literally useless in today's society of extreme abundance. Plus meat has never been that available and certainly not in the bullshit amounts you're sugegsting.

Nice argument. Also oats are god tier. But tell me more how the government, a shit ton of scientists all over the world and the WHO are corrupt bastard trying to jeopardise meat.

>It makes sense to me
>This other thing doesn't make sense to me

Aside from being a logical fallacy, this kind of thinking is also where broscience comes from.

...

>on a healthy plant based diet
this is where I stopped reading. dogmatic science deniers like you should be banned from posting.

For one, the dietary fiber in oats and lack of saturated fat and cholesterol is a huge plus. The anti-inflammatory compounds in oats (avenanthramides) and other antioxidant and anti-cancer phytochemicals help prevent degenerative diseases. In contrast, meat, especially red meat, is inflammatory with atherogenic and carcinogenic compounds.

I don't know why people always bring up paleo shit in these discussions. What paleolithic humans ate has little to nothing to do with what's ideal to eat in modern times. Back then, any food that wasn't immediately toxic was good enough, because all that mattered was getting enough calories and living long enough to reproduce. You can do that now eating nothing but cupcakes and cheetos. If you want to figure out what foods are good or bad for us, that's a separate thing to study. Whole grains are consistently shown to be good for us.

You have a very simple and easy to adhere to filter by which you don't touch any processed foods, you totally avoid the abuse of taste buds that has become our food industries and you get to enjoy eating delicious things that are good for you.

Why the fuck else would animal fat be so god damn fucking delicious? Why, at a base level, would the taste buds so very much enjoy foods unless they were good for you?
If it were the case that delicious food, found in nature, were bad for you we, as a species, would have gone extinct thousands and thousands of years ago.

Like you wouldn't expect to see a Lion go 'ahh I can't eat any more meat, the saturated fat is bad for me so I'll eat these bitter, disgusting plants to keep my weight down'
Why the fuck would human beings be any different?
What idiot of a wild man would shun a juicy piece of mammoth in favour of some dry ass plant food?

And more to the point how the fuck can it be right that a 'balanced' diet consists of a bazillion different foods from all corners of the globe that would never ever ever have been available together before globalisation?

How can it be mandatory for people to need to eat 5 magical pieces of fruit and veg daily if they want to be healthy like nature has placed this arbitrary limit on our diets?
What sad cunt caveman is going to sit and chew endless leaves unless he's starving and has no choice when, given the option, he'd consume nutrient dense meats and fats because they're delicious calorie dense and provide all essential amino acids and most vitamins?

>Whole grains

For every study that says they're great there are just as many claiming the complete opposite.
Dietary science is a total fucking joke. Endless theories, revised understandings of dietary mechanisms, total flip flopping in official recommendations every 50 fucking years...

Dude you're 19, just stay away for sugary shit and don't eat takeout. That means only drink water and instead of eating a big ass plate of food, eat 2/3 of it. Also go fucking run everyday and do core exercises. It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to figure this shit out.

>Whole grains
>For every study that says they're great there are just as many claiming the complete opposite.

bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2716
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449231
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375186
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1606.short
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479204
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084154
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15585760
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22074852
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15162131

Show me one study where whole grains were reported to correlate with higher disease risk

Keto only counts net carbs (carbs - fiber) so no, you wont break keto by eating a ton of leafy greens.

Every body is different but keto works wonders for me, that being said as a diet keto is just too rigid imo. While I can lose more fat in, say a month, on keto... it requires a shitton of planning. If you don't have your meal preps then you're basically fucked since eating out and avoiding almost every single carb is a nightmare.

Low calorie, low fat, lowish carbs on IF for me is by far the simpler option.

In a survival situation, practically anything that provides calories is a benefit. We enjoy how each macronutrient tastes because it makes us want to eat more, which makes it less likely we'll starve. If your only concern is not starving, then eat anything. In fact processed foods are the best thing for you then, because you'll eat more of them than you would any natural food. If you're concerned with long-term health, which is mostly outside of the realm of evolution because nature doesn't give a shit if you have a stroke when you turn 51, you need to look at the properties of foods more scientifically. It's not "mandatory" that you eat 5 fruit and veg. That's a recommendation (actually more now, 9 a day) for the minimum amount you should eat in order to prevent age-related chronic diseases from developing, because the goal at least in first world countries is to lower the incidence rates of things like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, rather than just prevent starvation.

>done keto
>lost 20kgs
>still alive

fuck you and your vegan retards

Get a rough estimation of body fat. Eat 500 cals under TDEE. Get 1 g protein per lb lean body mass and 1/2 g fat per pound of lean body mass. A little over or under for either is probably fine but try to hit this. The rest is carbs. Take your carbs and breakfast , lunch, and pwo shake. Don't eat more than 50 or so grams of carbs before bed (think 5 hours or so). Carb manipulation is key here, all carbs are not the same.

Keto cheats by making diet easy: all fat + all protein - carbs = no thinking. Except for counting carbs. Do some research and you will find that all "diets" are bullshit and demonizing carbs/sat fat/etc is just easy shit for sheep to understand. Just hit the macros above with clean foods (ie make you own food from scratch and eat raw stuff) and as long as you hit a deficit you will lose weight. Bonus is lifting while losing this weight - you get to eat more plus when the weight is off you are not a skelly. GL and godspeed user.

This picture turns me on. What has fit done to me...