File :-(, x, )
KETOGENIC VS. NON-KETO. Anonymous
Honestly, is doing the whole low-carb diet (NOT FATKINS, just low carb in general) a waste of time?
I mean, does forcing your body into ketosis for weight loss, not even because you're an epileptic, really do you any good health-wise?
Or could eating healthy and INCLUDING your whole grains and natural sugars be just as efficient?
I'm curious, because I'm considering taking on the ketogenic lifestyle in attempt to lose my "freshman fifteen" weight from drinking during the school year. Now that the summer's here, I want to lose weight as fast as possible.
I'm a fit person, I do work out often, but I guess you could say I look like i'm in a bulking stage.
So should I just keep eating healthy as I do regularly, but cut the alcohol, or would taking on a ketogenic diet be a good idea aswell? I'm really curious as to how it works. Personally, I DO eat a lot of carbs, but I mean, if I were to cut carbs, it'd basically be veggies and leans for me. I wouldn't do all the "low carb" brand shit. I eat very organic (more like my family does) and I wouldn't consider buying that shit anyways.
If I did, do you know if I have to like, eat a ton of veggies a day? Because personally, without carbs, I'm not sure about how many veggies and chicken breasts I can eat in a day. Like would I have to shovel it down, or could I just eat like, say 3 servings of veggies and 3 servings of lean meat? Would that be bad or what?

tl;dr: Ketogenic, good or bad? Explain.
>> Anonymous
Ketosis, as I understand it, deprives your body of energy without putting you in starvation mode. I.E., you use your own body's stores almost exclusively, be they fat, muscle, other various soft tissues.

So no, it is not healthy in the least. Not deadly, but not healthy -- as evidenced by the fact that those who do the diet give testimony that they feel like shit almost constantly.

Just do the normal balanced -- but reduced -- diet and cardio off your fat. It'll be a little slower, but you'll feel so much better while you're doing it (i.e., less chance of yoyoing back)
>> Anonymous
>>109175
Well i've done some reading on it, and I know it's not exactly depriving your body of energy, it basically switches your body's energy source from carbs, being your regular instant access energy, to long-term fat depositions. It also causes the liver to break fats down differently, causing them to separate from their originial triglycerol state into a usable instant energy source, which is digested faster and does not become a deposit. I don't exactly know if i'm making sense here, but I know it's not a form of energy depriving.
>> Anonymous
>>109186

It is energy deprivation. You're not giving your body it's main energy sources (definitely not what it primarily uses), so it starts surviving on whatever else it can find. That is textbook energy deprivation.

Just because your body can work around what you do to it doesn't make it healthy. For example, now that you've mentioned the liver's activities, I'm pretty sure severe/extended ketosis can cause liver damage.
>> Anonymous
>>109191
Negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet
READ. It's not as amateur as you think.
>> Anonymous
>>109191

How?

Pathway or GTFO.
>> Anonymous
>>109195

Granted I just scanned...but I don't see anything that goes against what I've said.
>> Anonymous
>>109197

How what? The liver damage? The liver is forced to take on more than it normally has to.
>> Anonymous
>>109191
you fucking moron. main energy source only if it's what you mainly consume, and the diet in the western world didn't become carb rich until a couple of hundred years ago. it sure as hell isn't what humans evolved on. deprivation? get the fuck out. candy is not a fucking staple food homo.
>> Anonymous
>>109203
It's been used for almost 100 years. It's caused no liver damage amongst any patients. The only popular stigma associated with it is constipation. BIGGG EFFINNN DEAAAAL.
>> Anonymous
>>109204
what liver damage? jesus christ. stop making shit up. the only people to ever have problems with this sort of diet had pre-existing liver and kidney damage. the studies that showed that ketogenic diets were bad for the liver where done on people with liver failure. healthy people get healthier. you fail more.
>> Anonymous
>>109207

Then why are carbs most easily digested and converted to energy by the body?

Why are carbs used before virtually every other energy source?

Why do the people who go low carb typically describe having no energy during the heaviest stages of their ketogenic diet?
>> Anonymous
>>109209
>>109211

From http://www.myhealthpointe.com/Program/faq/ketosis.htm#harmful
>There is a risk of liver damage only with extreme and continued ketosis

From me:
I'm pretty sure severe/extended ketosis can cause liver damage.

I didn't say it would, I didn't say it ever had. I said it COULD happen.
>> Anonymous
>>109212
>>Then why are carbs most easily digested and converted to energy by the body?

your body will adapt to using what is available first. the western diet is now carb-rich. qed. once you make a dietary change, the body will then adapt to using fats as an instant energy source. this is not new science.

>>Why are carbs used before virtually every other energy source?

see above.

>>Why do the people who go low carb typically describe having no energy during the heaviest stages of their ketogenic diet?

it takes about three weeks for the body to switch over. most people usually give up in the second, which is usually the 'hardest'. so who exactly are these 'most people'?
>> Anonymous
>>109214
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet
>It has been hypothesized that a diet related change in blood acidity can lead to bone loss through a process called ketoacidosis, as mentioned earlier in this article. However ketoacidosis, which is often confused with ketosis, is an acute medical condition caused by extreme fasting or as a symptom of untreated diabetes, and is not likely to be induced by a proper low-carbohydrate diet.

UHHH DURRR. EXTREME FASTING, UNTREATED DIABEETUSS. CONFUSION OF KETOACIDOSIS. DON'T BE DUMB. THANKS. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketoacidosis
>> Anonymous
>>109216

Please find me a source that says the body is at any point able to process fats more easily than carbs. As far as I know, carbs are ALWAYS the easier choice for the body; fats are only used when there are no carbs to be found.
>> Anonymous
>>109214
nobody cares what you think. the fact remains that the studies that showed they were bad for the liver were performed on people with pre-existing severe liver and kidney conditions. i can't be fucked getting into this same old argument again with the COMPLEX CCAAAAARBS group of headpunchers so go do your own research.

start with dr jeff volek.
>> Anonymous
>>109220

What the hell are you talking about? The liver isn't even mentioned in your snippet...
>> Anonymous
>>109222
start with the anabolic diet and work from there. plenty of sources in that book for you.
>> Anonymous
>>109223

The fact remains that your risk for kidney damage is elevated while in this state.
>> Anonymous
>>109222

>On the ketogenic diet, carbohydrates are severely restricted and so cannot provide for all the metabolic needs of the body. Most energy is instead produced by a high rate of fatty-acid oxidation in the cell mitochondria. This produces large amounts of acetyl-CoA, which the liver uses to synthesize the three ketone bodies ß-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate and acetone. The brain is normally fuelled solely by glucose; fatty acids do not cross the blood-brain barrier. Ketone bodies can enter the brain but they are not used preferentially to glucose. The ketone bodies are converted to acetyl-CoA and subsequently to adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as part of the Krebs cycle within brain mitochondria.[36]

The ketone bodies are possibly anticonvlusant in themselves; acetoacetate and acetone protect against seizures in animal models. The ketogenic diet results in adaptive changes to brain energy metabolism that increases the energy reserves; ketone bodies are a more efficient fuel than glucose, and the number of mitochondria is increased. This may help the neurons to remain stable in the face of increased energy demand, and may also confer a neuroprotective effect.[36]

SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet
>> Anonymous
>>109228
the fact remains that in the state that the patients were in they were going to die without transplants so your conclusion is bullshit to begin with.
>> Anonymous
>>109227

So you can't produce anything then? M'kay
>> Anonymous
>>109229

>the ketogenic diet results in adaptive changes to brain energy metabolism that increases the energy reserves; ketone bodies are a more efficient fuel than glucose

>a more efficient fuel than glucose
>> Anonymous
Keto is the best way to lose fat quickly without losing much muscle. Fact.

As for health concerns, some people run better on this diet than that Westernized diet of sucking Archer-Daniel-Midlands' cock and eating its grains. I'm part Native American, and this diet seems to be optimal for me.
>> Anonymous
>>109229

More efficient does not equal more easily used. The body will ALWAYS go to carbs first when they're available. Fats just store more energy; it is harder for the body to access that energy, though. That's why it uses carbs first. They're simpler and thus quicker to burn.

>>109231
So what? It doesn't mean that a normal person's liver isn't being more heavily taxed in this state. That alone = increased risk of liver damage.
>> Anonymous
>>109236
"this diet" being the Keto?
>> Anonymous
Why is everyone calling high carb diets westernized? Eastern regions have lived on rice much longer than "the west" has even been around.
>> Anonymous
>>109244
Everyone here's obese and they aren't. Westernized = fat.
>> Anonymous
>>109248

So they're comparing a grossly unhealthy fast food lifestyle to a heavily moderated and controlled method of food selection?

I guess that explains why they love ketosis so much...
>> Anonymous
>>109239
Yes, keto: for me, the transition into it is pretty mild and quick, and I have more energy. I still come out of it to bulk.

If someone has plains-Indian blood--I am over a quarter--it is definitely worth a shot. They used to live like this a century ago.

Whitey has been eating grain for at least 1500 years, and Asians living on rice for exactly one jabillion years, so results may vary.
>> Anonymous
>>109238
holy fuck. hey look, just listen to whatever you want to hear ok? don't let the research or anything cloud that true-believer point of view you've got there alright?
>> Anonymous
>>109248
learn 2 compare meaningful statistics

carbs =!= "why asians are skinny or why westerners are fat"

relative availibility of food per capita === "why asians [...] westerners are fat"

nobles were fat in Asia... as they were in Europe...

larger middle class in Europe/US means moar fatties
>> Anonymous
>>109254

I'm sorry, I'll just accept the "fact" that putting more stress on ANY OTHER MOTHERFUCKING SYSTEM IN THE BODY OR UNIVERSE elevates its chances of failure, except for the liver.
>> Anonymous
>>109252
actually, whitey hasn't been eating grains so much for that long. in the north of europe anyway. the diet of the english peasant consisted largely of turnips, not grain, for example.
>> Anonymous
>>109255
wat.
>> Anonymous
>>109259
except when all the research tells you you're wrong. that's like saying exercise is bad for you because it elevates your heart rate and stresses teh system. with patients in that condition eating fruit (fructose is processed in the liver) or even chocolate would probably be bad for them. so don't eat fruit.

no, you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
>> Anonymous
>>109264
FUCKING SIGNED.
>> Anonymous
>>109264

Yes, exercising for 24 hours a day is bad for you for that reason.

We all go into Ketosis for periods during the day, but NOT 24 HOURS A DAY FOR WEEKS ON END!

So -- now follow me here, this is where it gets complicated -- just like stressing your heart and then letting it rest is beneficial for you, perhaps going into ketosis and out of it periodically like our body naturally does is also beneficial?
>> Anonymous
>>109269
yeah man, don't let science contradict you or anything. the voices in your head are much more authorative.
>> Anonymous
>>109271

So it was too complicated for you then?
>> Anonymous
OMG. The idiocy here! Everyone knows that keto wrecks your body's internal organs. You stupid cunts are also suppressing your testosterone and other important hormones. You effeminate nancy boys will soon be munching on cocks, because your diet has made you crave it like women. Have fun, ketofags.
>> Anonymous
Asians aren't fat from the carbs they eat because they don't sit on their asses all day. /thread
>> Anonymous
>>109269
if you have heart failure then any exercise becomes potentially fatal. so maybe now you can see how fucking stupid your position is.

oh, incidentally, high carb diets are a leading factor in type 2 diabetes. so looks like that's not good for you either.

you're a fucking tool.
>> Anonymous
>>109272
irony much?
>> Anonymous
>>109277

I...what the fuck are you talking about? In healthy people, keeping your heart rate constantly high elevates their risk for heart damage.

In the same way, keeping your liver running up-tempo for extended periods like ketosis does elevates your risk for liver damage.

Also, there's a difference between high carb and normal carbs, but the distinction hasn't been made in this thread yet. Yeah, if you eat enough carbs to get overweight, it'll elevate your chances of type II diabetes. Normal carb intake, however, lacks that risk.
>> Anonymous
I never did any of this "low carb, no carb" diet things. And I lost 20 lbs of weight.
>> Anonymous
I was intending to try keto, but the obvious lack of understanding in human biology here among the supporters of keto has changed my mind. I do not want my brain to become as atrophied and filled with fatty deposits as theirs are.
>> Anonymous
>>109284
i give up.

go back to drinking paint.
>> Anonymous
>>109290

Give up on what? You're saying I'm wrong and insulting me. Interestingly enough, that strategy does not make for a very compelling argument.
>> Anonymous
>>109291
Interestingly enough, you've been talking out of your ass the whole time. You know nothing about ketosis. You know nothing about Ketogenic diets. You're not a doctor, and I highly doubt you're anywhere NEAR sufficiently knowledgeable in nutritional and biological sciences to prove that the Ketogenic diet has any adverse affects on your liver, should you enter the diet with a healthy liver in the first place. But from the information granted over the internet, case studies have shown no serious adverse effects over A HUNDRED years of clinical usage of the Ketogenic diet. You NEED to shutthefuckup.
>> Anonymous
>>109291
i'm insulting you because it's not worth doing anything else. you are someone that refuses to listen regardless if it contradicts your world view. the thread contains the basic info and yet you consistantly refuse to listen. your entire argument boils down to no, don't wanna.

so go to hell. and die.
>> sigmund freud
>>109157
#1 - the jury's still out on the long term effects of ketogenic, so do you want to risk it?

#2 - when you come out of ketogenic diet your body will balloon up with fat again, so unless you're giving up carbs the rest of your life, DONT DO EET
>> Anonymous
>>109186
according to my doctor girlfriend, doing ketogenic diet if you're a normal person is really bad for you long term
>> Anonymous
>>109207
humans didn't evolve on carbs? what part of "hunter GATHERER" did you not understand? "gatherer" = fruits and veggies = carbs
>> Anonymous
>>109157

Glucose is the body's main source of energy. All of your organs and tissue require glucose. Carbs are fine.
>> Anonymous
Research I dug up in 3 seconds:

>A systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets found that the weight loss achieved is associated with the duration of the diet and restriction of energy intake, but not with restriction of carbohydrates.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673604169869

>Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/14/1837%20 (that's motherfucking JAMA, bitches)

>Questions remain about the possible association of low-carbohydrate diets with the risk of colon cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and hypertriglyceridemia.
http://ccjm.org/pdffiles/Blackburn901.pdf

>potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/3/285

I did find an article supporting ketogenic, but it said it was good for SHORT TERM, not long term, weight loss.

Need I go on?
>> Anonymous
>>109453
moar:

>the KD resulted in severe impairment in visual-spatial memory and decreased brain growth, with no effect on mossy fiber sprouting. This study raises concerns about the long-term effects of the KD on brain development. (KD = ketogenic diet)
http://www.pedresearch.org/pt/re/pedresearch/abstract.00006450-200403000-00024.htm;jsessionid=LjtNZ3
2F3KwdClhBGdcbsyhd1Qk2k3x0gmplqTR1GZtTpS18pKHw!-341159882!181195629!8091!-1

One of the previous sources I cited also says:
>Ketosis from prolonged fasting in healthy people increases insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. Insulin resistance . . . plays a central role in many disease states (eg, . . . type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) . . .
and also
>POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF KETOGENIC DIETS . . . Poor athletic performance . . . Increased risk of osteoporosis . . . Rising blood pressure with age . . . Orthostatic hypotension
and finally
>There is no evidence that low-carbohydrate diets are effective for long-term weight management, and their long-term safety is questionable and unproven.
this was from the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Vol. 68, No. 9.
>> Anonymous
>>109456
moar

>The current evidence though indicates that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted diets on long-term weight loss and maintenance. Furthermore, a higher rate of adverse side-effects can be attributed to low-carbohydrate dieting approaches. Short-term efficacy of low-carbohydrate diets has been demonstrated for some lipid parameters of cardiovascular risk and measures of glucose control and insulin sensitivity, but no studies have ascertained if these effects represent a change in primary outcome measures. Low-carbohydrate diets are likely effective and not harmful in the short term and may have therapeutic benefits for weight-related chronic diseases although weight loss on such a program should be undertaken under medical supervision. While new commercial incarnations of the low-carbohydrate diet are now addressing overall dietary adequacy by encouraging plenty of high-fibre vegetables, fruit, low-glycaemic-index carbohydrates and healthier fat sources, this is not the message that reaches the entire public nor is it the type of diet adopted by many people outside of the world of a well-designed clinical trial.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00196.x

Note that everything I've linked to is published and peer-reviewed medical and nutrition journal articles.
>> Anonymous
>>109157

You know...here's the deal. Carbs are fine. Carbs come in different sources, though. You do generally want to avoid large amounts of simple carbs like processed white sugars. You don't want to avoid quality carbs like those in rice, pasta, potatoes, and fruits/vegetables.

A big problem is that carbs are "cheap". There are a lot of carbs in a lot of different foods and it's easy to end up eating an amount that will fill your stomach, but you didn't take into account just how many calories those carb sources were adding to your body. A good example is pasta. You're only supposed to eat like half a cup of uncooked pasta for a serving...yet it seems to be an American tradition to gobble down a big fucking bowl of pasta or rice...and suddenly you just slurped down probably over 1,000 calories in a single sitting, not counting the calories in the sauce or the meat that was likely served with the pasta.

I've said it hundreds of times and I'll say it again, calories are what make you gain weight. If you eat too many, your body stores them as fat if you don't burn them off with exercise. This does not mean, however, that the content should not be also be taken into consideration. Fats and simple carbs are more quickly stored as body fat. Proteins and complex carbs are more quickly converted to glucose for your organs and thus NOT stored as fat. There's also the whole deal of how more wholesome foods let you take in more quantity without added calories (IE, 5 ounces of vegetables versus 5 ounces of ground chuck) and will thusly keep you feeling full much longer.

tl;dr: Carbs are not the problem. LARGE PORTIONS of carbs are the problem, as it has become commonplace in both America and Europe to serve WAY too much rice or pasta at once.
>> Anonymous
>>109461
Half a cup of pasta = 1000 cals is bullshit

I cook pasta using a cup of whole wheat pasta with no "fat free" etc tricks involved, include low-fat mozz, tomatoes, and basil, and the whole thing is under 500 cals
>> Anonymous
>>109464
oh wait, sorry, i misread your comments
>> Anonymous
>>109441
>#2 - when you come out of ketogenic diet your body will >balloon up with fat again, so unless you're giving up carbs >the rest of your life, DONT DO EET

Complete and utter bullshit.

Also to the rest of you.There are other alternatives to the straight "constant ketosis" Atkins diet that you seem to be arguing for and against.
A CKD or TKD has all of the benefits of a ketogenic diet and much of less of the possible risk of doing this long term, and much less of the side effects (such as lack of energy)
>> Anonymous
>>109464
>>109466

Yeah, no problem.

A lot of people are like my dad when it comes to pasta. He just boils the entire box and fills up an entire bowl, completely ignoring portions or calories. I actually grabbed a box of it and it reads that there are 8 servings per box, with 210 calories per serving. A big problem is that A LOT of people seem to be taking restaurant style portions as what you should eat.

I mean, if someone puts half the box of cooked pasta in their bowl, then cheese, sauce, meatballs. You're easily looking at around 1,200 calories for a single meal, not even considering the calories in a non-water drink like beer, soda, juice or milk.

I feel that if I try to eat pasta as a whole meal and adhere to the serving size, it's not enough in my stomach. So pasta is a side for me if I ever do eat whole calorie pasta. Not uncommon for me to make a stir-fry with soba noodles, shrimp or chicken and vegetables, though. The key is keeping the lean protein source as the bulk of the meal and the carb source as the side.

I've also recently gotten into tofu shirataki noodles (in b4 weeaboo), which are made completely from tofu and vegetable sprouts/roots. An entire 8 ounce package has 40 calories. It allows me to get a big serving of "pasta" without worrying at all about calories, so the bulk of my calories can come from meats. They really don't taste all that different from regular noodles, although they're pretty fucking chewy, which is good if you like al dente pasta.
>> Anonymous
>>109441
>#2 - when you come out of ketogenic diet your body will >balloon up with fat again, so unless you're giving up carbs >the rest of your life, DONT DO EET

Complete and utter bullshit.

Also to the rest of you.There are other alternatives to the straight "constant ketosis" Atkins diet that you seem to be arguing for and against.
A CKD or TKD has all of the benefits of a ketogenic diet, very little of the side effects and likely reduces any long term effects (assuming there are any)
>> Anonymous
>>109490
nice DP there
>> Anonymous
I like how everyone's ignoring the long list of academic articles cited.
>> Anonymous
>>109526
to be honest, it doesn't mean so much. i've waded through peer review work that says otherwise as well. the problem is for the last 20-30 years high carb diets have been considered best of the best and there is an inertia that makes changing this point of view very difficult, despite a bunch of research indicating this approach is actually unhealthy. so right there you have two contradictory points of view, both peer reviewedm and which one is correct? this is one factor you always have to consider. what's more, with anything to do with humans nothing is every completely clear cut to begin with. in the end it depends on how much energy you're willing to put into winning the argument. tonight, i can't be fucked. some other night, maybe i will. every six months or so you're going to have another study come out that will contradict the last study that came out. this is just the way that 'science' works. people who want to think otherwise don't spend enough time dealing 'science'.

personally, at the moment i am following what certain elite level strength and conditioning coaches are doing with their athletes nutritional needs. it works for me quite well. and that's about as good as you'll ever get.
>> Anonymous
>>109542
i just ate healthy food and lifted weights, i didn't follow a special diet. i dropped from 258 to 200 in 3 months and most of my lifts (squats/bench/deadlift) nearly doubled in that time as well. most people will never need specific diets. all i used was common sense towards what i put in my mouth and it worked. i didn't need to figure out macros or count calories. (i haven't posted in this thread before at all, i'm not part of your argument)
>> Anonymous
>>109545
if you start from zero then pretty much any change will have positive effects. to a large extent it's about optimisation. which is where shit gets complicated.
>> Anonymous
>>109548
how many 4chan regulars do you think come to /fit/ because they're looking for tips on how to break their latest power clean plateau? its all fat guys looking for a fast way to get skinny, skinny guys looking to get fatter, and posts about acne.

optimization is a silly discussion for this forum, many of the people here would benefit from basic positive changes, and most won't last longer than two weeks before they give up. pick your battles
>> Anonymous
>>109555
>>pick your battles

well, i just did didn't i?

and you're right. so for the most part i just come here to make people hate themselves.
>> Anonymous
>>109555

Granted, I don't clean, but I have lifted for ten years. Keto is necessary for me. It is not faster, since any hare-brained calorie deficit can be fast, but it is more muscle-sparing. That makes all the difference.

Losing from 30-15% is fairly easy any way, but keto is the only way to cut from 15-10% for many of the ungifted or unroided lifters. We lose too much mass else. Newfags deserve to know that for future reference.