>>7853973
The two have nothing to do with each other.

Paleo explained in a nutshell:
>>Durr, modern diets are bad so we should only eat what cavemen ate.

Keto:
If you cut out carbs from your diet entirely then your body is forced to use a different mechanism to generate energy. That method (ketosis) is less efficient than digesting carbs, therefore it results in weight loss. A side benefit of the Keto diet is that it's honestly hard to eat a lot of calories from fat and protein alone, so even if the Ketosis did nothing it still helps one lose weight by calorie-cutting.

you cut out Carbs, the body stops receiving easy to break down energy, the body is then forced to use fat as energy, which is harder to break down, and doesn't pass through the blood brain barrier without some weird process where the body breaks down lipids into some other molecule

so the body exerts more energy, by using existing fat reserves, it fucking sucks

like the first week you get super delirious, and irritable.

Over all, worth it

Trick question since it does not work.

>>7853983
>it's honestly hard to eat a lot of calories from fat and protein alone
tell that to my 16 ounce ribeye.

>>7854280
t.fatass who tried it for two or three days, didn't exercise, then gave up

>>7854330
I've been lean all my life eating a fuckton of carbs and very limited fat. I've never seen a thin person eating a keto style diet, I've only seen fatties on the internet arguing that it will help you lose weight. You don't need to exercise to stay lean if you have a healthy diet.

>>7854283
Do you eat that 2-3 times a day? No, because protein is dense and filling as fuck.

Ask yourself this, which is easier to eat- that ribeye, or a sleeve of oreos?

>>7854585

ultimately it's going to be calories in - calories out, no matter how your macros are structured. Keto, while scientifically sound, is more of a mental trick to play on yourself to force discipline. You can eat nothing but pizza for a year and lose weight as long as you're not eating more calories than your maintenance.

>>7854602
Yes but dietary fat, especially from animal sources and concentated fats like oil and butter, causes people to overeat calories. There are more than enough well-designed studies that show this. If you mix oil/butter/lard into people's food, they eat more calories throughout the day. If you add carbs/protein or even nuts, they compensate automatically by eating less calories at other meals. If you simply tell fat people to restrict their fat intake, they lose weight automatically, if you tell them to restrict carbs nothing happens.

>>7854617

but you're still talking about people who aren't truly tracking their calories throughout the day. Obese people who don't eat fat still are going to gain weight due to overeating because they have no idea what healthy portion sizes look like. You need to count calories in order for calories in - calories out to work. This overeating effect from fats you are describing is a non-issue if you're strictly counting calories and stop eating when you hit your daily limit.

>>7854637
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying though. A huge portion of the population being obese and diabetic wasn't a problem 100 years ago, and nobody was counting calories back then. Of course you can lose weight on a diet rich in of oil and butter if you count calories but that's besides the point because almost nobody counts calories, nor should they be expected to, because we know from experience that practically everybody can stay lean without counting calories by adhering to a healthy diet (excluding eating disorders etc.)

>>7854663

so what you're saying is:
- historically people have kept in shape without much effort due to their generally healthy diet
- modern diets add much more animal fats than previous, which has not only made food more calorie dense, but also encourages people to overeat due to some unseen factor
- by removing animal fats, people will eat less in general due to the lack of a supposed appetite-stimulation effect brought on by fat consumption

what I'm saying is:
- fat people are used to a new style of eating (overeating). Changing one aspect of their diet (removing fats) isn't going to help them lose weight without portion control because they have no idea what healthy portions look like, and will thus continue overeating
- counting calories is an assured way to lose weight regardless of what the current state of ones diet looks like

So what you're saying is that people wouldn't be overweight if they followed what was considered to be a traditional diet of 100-200 years ago. Fats are bad, fats are largely to blame for the current level of obesity around the world.

What I'm saying is that regardless of how the average diet changes, weight can be lost and kept off by monitoring calorie consumption as a concrete number, not as a "feeling".

Additionally, we should consider which is more impactful to an individual, eating a nonstandard diet (ie. one low in animal fats), versus counting calories. Personally I think counting calories is the easier trade-off, compared to being forced to not eat many foods that are now considered standard.

Sorry for rambling

>>7853973
it's memey bullshit. stop while you still can

>>7853987
Great review, and then you recommended it....

Btw i asked for a diagram.

>>7854594
idk man if its a really well done ribeye i'd say its on par with oreos sans milk for dunking.

>>7853983

>A side benefit of the Keto diet is that it's honestly hard to eat a lot of calories from fat and protein alone

what? it's extremely easy. plant matter is almost always the more challenging to digest

>>7855045
Why? Humans are not fucking ruminators.

>>7853973
From my perspective:
It looks like it is better to consume Glucose and not to consume more than 2g/kg Bodyweight in Protein.

Try to limit Fructose-Intake or other shitty sugars similar to it.