Keto diet
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
Is a keto diet more effective at a lower body fat?
>>37468708
Personally more effective at higher bf for me, senoai.
>>37468708
How much could i expect to lose in 3 months when 6'2 390?
>>37469225
Depends on what you eat
>>37469225
Holy fuck.
Broccoli, Chicken, Salmon, Steak, Spinach, Rice, Only for a few months.
It'll be hard but push through the pain.
>>37468708
Redpill me on keto, /fit/
Why should I do it if the only factor that determines weight loss is caloric deficit?
Is it better for body composition?
Are there any other advantages?
Compare to a standard healthy diet with tons of fibers and micros, 100 or a bit more g protein per day, random amounts of carbs and fats, healthy sources of carbs and fats like oats and tahini, and a total caloric deficit of 25% in both diets (in my case 2800-700=2100 kcal per day)
>>37469466
dieting (past CICO) is all about sustainability. It doesn't matter what your planned caloric intake is, if you cannot actually stick to the plan.
Some people find keto makes it easier for them, some people find that low-carb diets make them feel like shit, ..., so you'll have to just try it and see, I guess.
Seems like keto is a good fit for fatties because it makes you drop water-weight relatively quickly which produces encouraging results.
>>37469533
In short, you're telling me that keto is bs and pretty much only IIFYM&M (and micros) matters, as far as FAT (not just weight) loss and muscle maintainance is concerned.
>>37469466
Because the goal isn't weight loss, its fat loss. Calories in vs calories out works for weight loss, but final body composition varies greatly in response to other parameters of your diet. For example keto isn't necessarily required for ideal fat loss, but low carb (<100g a day) has been shown in studies to have greater muscle sparing effects (best of all macronutrient compositions). The end weight loss was the same, but the ratio of fat:muscle lost was superior on low carb.
Now you will obviously feel like complete fucking shit on low carb, thats why you do keto. Within 2-3 days you will feel normal again, and after a month or two your athletic ability will return too (not like it matters, who tries to set PR's on a cut).
So if you're gonna do low carb for a cut, you might as well go all the way and do keto for the sake of feeling good. However, when in doubt, if youre cheating or eating at a social event, staying within a low carb range is what matters (for fat loss).
Keto is incredibly sustainable too, I did it for almost half a year with no refeeds. Probably the easiest diet to follow. I had blood work bone before and after and saw very minute improvements across the board, however my liver function was greatly improved.
>>37469576
no he's telling you that consistency with cico is the most important thing
Keto allows for this consistency for some people
>>37469225
At your weight maybe 1-2 kgs a week. Keep in mind though that fat loss follows a negative-exponential curve (qualitatively speaking).
>>37469533
People who feel like shit on keto are either faggots who quit within 48 hours because theyre too impatient to adapt (literally took me like 2 fucking days come on), or they're doing it wrong to begin with. The less strict you are with controlling your carb intake the longer adaptation takes.
>>37469609
>2 kg per week
>7000 kcal per kg
>14000 kcal per week deficit
>7 days per week
>2000 kcal per day deficit
"no"
>>37469610
I have eaten literally 0 carb before (all meat and fat) and adapted very quickly. Within a few days I didn't have cravings for carb and I got hungry less often.
The issue is that no/very low carb is sparse with micronutrients so unless you can afford to supplement things like vitamin c you will feel like shit.
>>37469609
>fat loss follows a negative-exponential curve
Only if you keep eating the same calories as your body weight decreases. That is because as you lose weight, your energy expenditure moves closer to your intake (so your deficit approaches zero), producing that curve.
You are supposed to recalculate your intake to keep a fixed deficit or a fixed % deficit. That way the slope of weight loss over time remains steep (weight loss doesn't slow down)
tldr recalculate TDEE and caloric intake or deficit every 2 kg lost for best results
>>37469751
this
i recalculate every 5lbs
although im doing a 1400 calorie suicide cut rn and lost 0 strength kek
>>37469225
Max 10-15 kgs, with a diet of like 1.7k calories.
>>37469610
I've personally not had issues with adaptation (not in the 48 first hours or after that), but I wouldn't discount that it just hits some people much harder than others.
Nowadays when I cut I do keep oats and such in, because I feel that I might be a little more energized. No big difference for me personally either way though, if anything it's maybe a 10% thing or so. If you feel MUCH better on keto or high-carbs, then I would say go for it. You will still be able to lose weight either way.
>>37469696
you do realize that when you're almost 400 fucking pounds you could literally be starving yourself and it's not gonna kill you because you're carrying so much extra fat. A 2000 kcal deficit could work, although his fat mentality probably won't handle it.
Have you not read about that guy who was 500 lbs or something around that weight who went A FULL YEAR without eating (he only had micronutrients given through a tube, all of this was a study done in some hospital) and he got down to under 200 lbs after that year.
>>37469714
Myth, there are people who do keto for years on end, even well over a decade without refeeds or supplementation. If you put effort in to your diet you won't have deficiency.
>>37469390
>Rice
do you even keto?
New fag here. Is keto basically a meat and veggies diet? Is there much more to it?
>>37469915
>Have you not read about that guy
>who smoked 3 packs of cigarettes and lived to 120?
>who raw dogs his gf and hasn't gotten her pregnant?
Fuck off with that anecdotal evidence
Yes it can happen, no it is not the right way to do it.
>>37470384
isn't it something like 34 calories per lb body fat you can cut a day without harmful effects?
for a guy his size that is around a 7000 calorie deficit
>>37468708
It works better if you have more muscle, no matter what BF%. This of course if you're not in up and above the 25% BF.
>>37470325
It's a diet that cuts out a lot of carbohydrates (simple carbohydrates such as sugars, complex starchy carbohydrates but not complex fibrous carbohydrates -- these don't really matter much, as they are largely not "digested" in the traditional sense)
Basically all your calories are supposed to come from fat + however much protein you need to maintain muscle-mass.
Your brain normally runs on carbohydrates, but if your body does not get any for a while, and the glycogenic stores in your liver are depleted, your liver can start to generate ketones from fats on its own. These can be used to fuel your brain, but until that process has started up, you may feel like shit for a while.
Going overboard can be bad though, as it can lead to ketoacidosis (acetone breath) as ketone bodies break down into acetone-like compounds and it can badly affect the pH value of the blood, lead to acid piss etc. But in a reasonable framework it is fairly safe, as your body can compensate blood pH through bicarbonate buffering etc.
There isn't really any serious evidence to my knowledge that ketogenic diets are "factually" better than other diets in the sense that they will result in faster weightloss, better body-composition etc [1] but they may feel better to some people in terms of what they are allowed to eat, how they perform etc.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
>>37470384
kek
>>37469915
There was a guy in Scotland who lived at the hospital and was 700 pounds who lived off his fat and all he got was electrolytes through a iv if that's the guy you were talking about
>>37470643
might be yeah, someone posted it on here quite some time ago.
>>37470384
I didn't say it was good or that it was the right way to do it, I said it was possible. It is up for the guy himself to weigh out the negative risks with how much and how fast he wants to lose the weight. He asked how much *can* I lose, I told him. Had he asked how much *should* I lose or how much *is healthy to lose*, my answer would've been different.
>>37469225
Some motivation bro. I was ~380 (6"2") in 2013, i was losing ~10lbs per week on keto, just keep at it. We're all gonna make it.
>>37471130
>10lbs per week
Let me guess, you are either lying or your diet consisted of an egg and a multi per day
>>37471194
Water weight on keto is ridiculous. Some days i would gain 2lbs between working out and going to bed, and some days i would lose 10lbs overnight. But i was at ~1500 calorie deficit before cardio.
>>37471240
See, that's what I don't like about some posts here
When you talk about cut results, please differentiate between fat loss, muscle loss and water loss.
Please.
I swear this is a marketing scheme, fucking faggots try to plug their gay ass keywords. Hurr lower bodyfat b-b-best diet.
