All of those are good as long as you don't consume too much. Sugar is especially easy to overeat considering how much of it is in a lot of modern food. >WATER IS.. LE BAD!!
Who says this
>Who says this
Your water is full of fluoride, microplastices, and estrogen. Just start making water at home. I buy ice from eskimos and cook my own water at home.
The inclusion of something as gay and baseless as a TDEE calculator invalidates the sticky >here's your totally scientific BMR >and here's one of 3 nice round, magic numbers to add on to that, depending on how active you say you are :*~~
Yeah individuals vary massively, which is why you should use a smartwatch. Knowing your HR + respiration rate = extremely useful estimate of total calorie expenditure each day, much more accurate than just inputting your numbers and "activity level" to some website.
>eat vegetables and meat >some berries or an apple for desert >HOLY FUCK YOU LITERAL RETARD DIE COMMIT SUICIDE YOU'RE KILLING YOURSELF SCHIZO
uhhh based
You won't reliably stay in ketosis eating like the primitive humans that ate all vegetables and fruit they could find. Average apple alone is about 10 grams of carbs. You really think your ancestors would find an apple tree with dozens of apples on it after starving for 3 days and go >yeah I'm only gonna have 1 or 2, wouldn't want to kick myself out of ketosis lmao
The original wild versions of a number of fruits and vegetables were nearly inedible and only became palatable through years and years of cultivation. Primitive man mostly subsisted on wild game.
>yes fruits were edible back then and our ancestors did eat them but but but but
Okay, I accept your concession anon, calm down.
2 months ago
Anonymous
If you can call that edible, sure.
2 months ago
Anonymous
They were obviously edible since they were cultivated for centuries and became what they are today.
Lmao you fucking retard.
2 months ago
Anonymous
If they were already edible, why were they cultivated and selectively bred in the first place? You're not very smart.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>why were they cultivated and selectively bred in the first place?
To bear more fruit due to increasing requirements for food. This is an issue even nowadays, we are modifying plants to bear more fruit.
You're an actual retard lmfao.
>omg if dogs were domesticated, then why did we breed them selectively??????
kek
2 months ago
Anonymous
>To bear more fruit due to increasing requirements for food
https://i.imgur.com/ZXoc2Q3.png
yeah pretty much
2 months ago
Anonymous
>literally points towards vegetables/fruit that were selectively cultivated to bear more fruit due to increases in population size
Okay? Thanks for agreeing with me I guess lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
And selectively cultivated to be more edible since they were barely edible as is. You want to ignore that part but anybody with a brain can see it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>barely edible
Then they wouldn't become the backbone of multi-billion dollar industries, retard.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Is this a bot? We're talking about the original wild forms of fruits and vegetables. "Dollars" didn't even exist when the wild versions were all there was.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>original wild forms
Yeah, which were edible to the point humans decided to harvest them on a mass scale.
Do you have a hole in your brain ketoschizo?
2 months ago
Anonymous
AFTER they were domesticated to be palatable to anybody outside of an extreme survival situation. Once again, you're not very good at this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
They were domesticated because they were a good source of food, not the other way around.
You're coping hard, ketotard.
2 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/ZXoc2Q3.png
yeah pretty much
2 months ago
Anonymous
>points back again at an image showing fruits that were domesticated because they were a good source of food to the point that they became the backbone of civilisation
I accept your concession yet again, anon.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Domesticated because they were barely edible as-is. You keep tiptoeing around that.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>barely edible
Headcanon.
They were edible to the point they were a good source of food on which civilisation could thrive.
2 months ago
Anonymous
People were growing them because they were eating them. Occasionally, a mutation would generated a larger or flesher or sweeter variety which was eminently preferable, but this was a side-effect of cultivation, not the reason for it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>People were growing them because they were eating them.
Nobody is disputing that they were eaten, but the fact of the matter is that they were nothing like how we know them today and were selectively bred over thousands of years to reach the forms we are familiar with (not even getting into the GMO issue which is its own can of worms). The idea that they were eaten in the hunter-gatherer days anywhere near as often as they are eaten now is ludicrous simply because hunter-gatherers primarily subsisted on animal products and would only have resorted to eating wild fruits and vegetables out of desperation, especially considering that they were fibrous, full of seeds, and lacking in flavor compared to modern variations.
https://i.imgur.com/H6xMpLO.png
[...]
[...]
[...]
Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics, you fucking schizo.
You literally don't know shit about biology.
Also this [...]
>Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics, you fucking schizo.
And they barely ate fruits and vegetables. That became more common later when the age of agriculture began.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>when the age of agriculture began
So they were edible to the point of allowing the age of agriculture to happen.
Thanks for your concession yet again anon.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Edible after agriculture, yes. Thank you for continuing to play dumb to try to score points in a petty Internet argument.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>after agriculture
Before agriculture, thus allowing agriculture.
See
https://i.imgur.com/lGq9ExO.jpg
If chickens in the 1950s were already edible, why did we selectively breed them to grow larger and fatter?!
for reference.
Too easy, ketoschizo.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>agricultural society selectively breeding fruits and vegetables to make them edible and not purely fibrous, tasteless, and full of seeds is comparable to selectively breeding chickens to be larger
Alright, we're done here.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Unironically yes. The old chickens werent just smaller, they had far less meat on them, they were lot more sinewy and cartiligenous, ie less edible.
2 months ago
Anonymous
society selectively breeding fruits and vegetables to make them edible
They were already edible.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>purely fibrous
Brainlet take, they had macronutrients, otherwise they wouldn't become staple food.
>is comparable to selectively breeding chickens
The principle is the same. Chickens back then were barely useful for meat and eggs, they were selectively bred for it.
Ketoschizo shenanigans.
2 months ago
Anonymous
nta, are you aware that fiber can ferment in the gut into short chain fatty acids? also, chicken and eggs didn't change their macronutrient ratios as much as fruits and grains did. therefore, our ancestors ate less carbohydrates overall.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>chicken and eggs didn't change their macronutrient ratios as much as fruits and grains did
why are you lying? modern frankenchickens have more fats compared to the non crossbred species, at least that's the case at where i'm from
2 months ago
Anonymous
I said not as much. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that man made fruits have a lot of carbs. Wild fruits have a lot of fiber. That means that ancestral diet had less carbohydrates than the modern one.
2 months ago
Anonymous
modern broilers have much more fat, just try making schmaltz from wild chickens or even non factory farmed broilers, the yields are quite pathetic compared to factory farmed broilers
2 months ago
Anonymous
>chicken and eggs didn't change their macronutrient ratios
moron have you seen how much trash is in mass produced chicken meat?
>our ancestors ate less carbohydrates
They ate less in general. Malnutrition is running through your and my genes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What is your point? Yes, our modern diet is shit, I am aware.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>city dweller trying to talk about chicken
Lmao.
Even small farm chickens tend to have tougher meat than mass farm chickens. A lot of factors go into it.
You wouldn't get even half of the amount of meat out of them all those centuries ago.
2 months ago
Anonymous
post body
2 months ago
Anonymous
look up Charles Bronson, that's me
2 months ago
Anonymous
>hunter-gatherers primarily subsisted on animal products
Read this
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23148
>Outside of circumpolar regions, where animal products make up the bulk of nutrition (Bang, Dyerberg, & Sinclair, 1980; Draper, 1977; Kuhnlein, Appavoo, Morrison, Soueida, & Pierrot,1994; Kuhnlein et al., 1996), many of the diets are dominated by plant resources. The two most extreme examples are the !Kung, who are reported to have obtained 60–80% of their diet from wild plants when small bands were still foraging full time (Lee, 1968), and the Hadza, who consume approximately 50–65% of their diet from plant foods (Marlowe et al., 2014).
2 months ago
Anonymous
Hadza eat 600 different plants/yr and have excellent microbiome diversity. Our microbes break plant material down into fatty acids just like monke
2 months ago
Anonymous
You are being disingenuous. It doesn't matter if we ate them, the first point you made is that prehistoric man ate fruits full of sugar, which anon is saying is incorrect since it was mostly fiber. You are fixating on the wrong part of the argument.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the first point you made is that prehistoric man ate fruits full of sugar
No. Learn to read moron.
>wrong part of the argument
No, ketotard is trying to say people somehow didn't eat fruit because it was inedible and then somehow it evolved overnight to its current form lmao
2 months ago
Anonymous
You won't reliably stay in ketosis eating like the primitive humans that ate all vegetables and fruit they could find. Average apple alone is about 10 grams of carbs. You really think your ancestors would find an apple tree with dozens of apples on it after starving for 3 days and go >yeah I'm only gonna have 1 or 2, wouldn't want to kick myself out of ketosis lmao
>You won't reliably stay in ketosis eating like the primitive humans that ate all vegetables and fruit they could find. Average apple alone is about 10 grams of carbs. You really think your ancestors would find an apple tree with dozens of apples on it after starving for 3 days and go
I was referencing this argument. I thought that was you. What is your point then?
2 months ago
Anonymous
My point is that you're retarded.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Gotcha. Can't say I am surprised by lack of intelligent response.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You're fat, so by default you're not intelligent.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>What is your point then?
To antagonize people and shit up the site, like every other bot and shill that makes up the majority of active users on this shithole.
2 months ago
Anonymous
*every other bot and shill that make up
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just keep it short with people/bots like that. It's of no use to argue in circles.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's always the same thing on this site nowadays. There's no real discussion, it's nothing more or less than demoralization, shilling, shitposting, social engineering, and/or useless static to prevent anything productive from happening since the site is too useful as a honeypot to be shut down outright. It's too bad because it used to be a really special place to me but now it's a toilet like every all 3 other sites that people use now.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That ketard has no capability of logical thinking whatsoever. He literally doesn't recognize backwards logic. Then again if he is who I think it is, it's an uneducated developmentally impaired guy living on a family farm as a farm-hand
2 months ago
Anonymous
If chickens in the 1950s were already edible, why did we selectively breed them to grow larger and fatter?!
2 months ago
Anonymous
Dietary fiber is metabolized as fat, and very poorly at that. No one is enjoying that shit beyond a survival situation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>but but but but x2
It's alright anon, we already concluded that you admit I'm right.
>survival situation
So you mean 99.9% of human history?
And then, out of nowhere, humanity just one day decided to put in 10 000 year continuous collective effort to selectively breed plants absolutely nobody ever ate, for no reason at all.
>banana
The banana we know today was only created in the 19th century, people were eating bananas for thousands of years prior. What's the source for this stupid shit anyway?
And selectively cultivated to be more edible since they were barely edible as is. You want to ignore that part but anybody with a brain can see it.
Is this a bot? We're talking about the original wild forms of fruits and vegetables. "Dollars" didn't even exist when the wild versions were all there was.
You are being disingenuous. It doesn't matter if we ate them, the first point you made is that prehistoric man ate fruits full of sugar, which anon is saying is incorrect since it was mostly fiber. You are fixating on the wrong part of the argument.
Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics, you fucking schizo.
You literally don't know shit about biology.
Also this
https://i.imgur.com/lGq9ExO.jpg
If chickens in the 1950s were already edible, why did we selectively breed them to grow larger and fatter?!
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah corn just one day showed up as a 7' tall grass with seeds the size of entire heads of wheat, magically on their own.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics
This is debatable as the selection and breeding of more docile animals was an integral part of domestication. The same thing with purposely culling plants based upon their fruit size, seed size, or edible mass. They didn't have a system until Mendel and relied more on an intuitive understanding of heritability. But the practice of intentional breeding goes back to the later eras of hunter gatherers that began to domesticate animals like wolves with traits that were more favorable to supporting them in their hunts. Early agriculturalists did intentionally breed plants based on desirable traits like dogs for herding or grasses for seed size and this is undeniable.
Pretty sure there are a lot of fruits and berries that had quite a lot carbs in their ancestral form and did not change much to this day, like dates, plums (e.g. acai plum), figs, etc. Somebody correct me if I am wrong
2 months ago
Anonymous
Correct. There is a reason that the picture has selected those examples - they are among the most extreme transformations compared to the wild ancestral forms.
That poster will never post comparisons of wild animals to their domesticated counterparts.
2 months ago
Anonymous
There are some that are fairly similar yes, but ancient forms were smaller with lower yields. For example figs are ancient and one of the highest calorie fruits but only have 20-30 calories per fig. An ancient human would have to eat 100-150 figs per day. Roughly one every 5 minutes while awake.
On the flip side if they hunted one mammoth it would feed more than 1000 people. What's easier, gathering 150,000 figs every day, or hunting 1 mammoth?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>What's easier, gathering 150,000 figs every day, or hunting 1 mammoth?
It's easier not being a brainlet that can only think in polar opposites.
Hunter gatherer societies were doing everything at once. Some hunted game, some were fishing, some gathered fruits and vegetables, etc.
2 months ago
Anonymous
yeah, things like dates have been around since like forever
Google what ancient cultivars of fruits and veg looked like, you would literally have to eat 100 ancient potatoes per day to hit 3000cal. It would be absurd. Or hunt one deer and the tribe is fed for 3 days. Ancient humans were almost pure carnivores, the myth of hunter gatherers was dispelled a long time ago.
A handful of walnuts provides ~500kcal
A single mature walnut tree produces anywhere from 80-160kg of nuts every year.
That's over 100,000,000kcal from a single tree. Nuts don't need to be cooked or processed before eating, and when kept dry they will stay edible for years.
Archaeological evidence shows evidence of acorn consumption as old as 30,000 years, and there is no reason to think tlit was a new behaviour at that point in time.
Amylase is the enzyme that digests starch. Chimpanzees and other great apes have 2 copies. Most humans have 4-10 copies. Anatomically modern humans that lived 400,000 years ago already had these extra copies of the amylase gene.
Why did they evolve this trait of they weren't consuming a significant quantity of starchy plant foods along with their animal foods?
noone ever says that not even in the /fat/ thread we say that if your gonna eat shit in a moment of weakness, at least make sure you eat less shit and adjust your meals later
>adjust your meals later
sorry buddy that isn't how it works. If you eat a bunch of sugar on a regular basis, reducing the calories of your later meal isn't going to save you.
no. people generally spontaneously reduce caloric intake on high fat diets and can eat to satiety while losing weight. but its still possible to gain weight eating too much on fat/protein foods
>spontaneously reduce caloric intake on high fat diets >eat to satiety while losing weight
Translation: the average amerimutt treats sweets like an actual meal and wonders why he can eat hundreds of grams of them at a time.
>organic human bodies are the same as cars because they use synonymous terms such as “fuel” despite being completely different
Do actual keto haters exist besides vegans who don’t even hate it for its metabolic properties?
Because they have engines that don’t rely on organic hormones and weight variables
https://i.imgur.com/skziSeX.gif
TIL the laws of thermodynamics did not exist until cars were invented
>thermodynamics exist that means organic systems and a machine are the same despite the numerous variables
If I only fill up my car with 1 gallon a day instead of a full tank my car will lose weight?
>If I only fill up my car with 1 gallon a day instead of a full tank my car will lose weight?
I don't understand where you're going with this analogy...
If you're equating fuel with calories and the fuel in the tank with fat reserves and your goal is to make the car as light as possible (having the tank near-empty without removing parts of the car since that's basically your LBM) then it does make sense to put less fuel in the tank per day than your daily fuel consumption (if you have 20 gals in your tank, used 6 and refueled with 3 then you will start the following day with 17 gals in the tank).
And please don't give me that "le hormones, le thyroid" spiel because that's a (you) problem if you have such a cursed body. If you're moving your body then you will use calories no matter where they are in your body or their form. Your body is not powered by the power of love and friendship like some sort of shounen animu.
>pic related
I’m not debunking CICO it is tried and true science as it gets but this extreme example is only as effective for morbidly obese, yes you will lots of weight but once you get to a healthy composition your hormonal balances will change as well as electrolyte requirements this is not just for people with endocrine dysfunction it goes for everybody, if you get even to a healthy bmi your body will suffer if you only apply a caloric deficit while not paying close attention to macro and micro needs, I don’t know if you think differently but that just needed to be said may it be common sense
>fuel in the tank with fat reserves
I did not mean this I meant the opposite in that car engines do not have secondary energy sources like humans do, we have adipose storages that can be used if not given direct fuel for the day or a period of time while cars do not, this is the justification for the existence of hormones as the body is designed to prolong itself in the absence of food
A car has a set fuel requirement that will not change and must be met or it will not run, a human however has a changing set of requirements and factors that alter the baseline for homeostasis, hormones do not solely effect people with health problems they effect everybody
That is understandable, it does make sense that the lower your BF% the harder it is to lose fat, your body will not choose to tap from a dwindling source of emergency fuel that has the potential to save your life in case of prolonged periods of absolutely zero caloric intake.
For me, I don't care what your diet is be it keto, paelo or vegan. But I really don't believe that certain diets that have an inherent magical property that allows you to eat +500 calories over your expenditure and you body will be like "gee thats a lovely selection of macros, better dump those extra 500 calories down the poop chute for I have no need for them and burn fat instead".
>fuel in the tank with fat reserves
I did not mean this I meant the opposite in that car engines do not have secondary energy sources like humans do, we have adipose storages that can be used if not given direct fuel for the day or a period of time while cars do not, this is the justification for the existence of hormones as the body is designed to prolong itself in the absence of food
A car has a set fuel requirement that will not change and must be met or it will not run, a human however has a changing set of requirements and factors that alter the baseline for homeostasis, hormones do not solely effect people with health problems they effect everybody
I've been doing keto since January and I feel good so I'm just going to keep doing keto. I know, I know.. You're upset because you don't have enough discipline to cut out goyslop.. but I do and I'm just going to keep eating keto. Hahaha lmao.
why do people get mad at keto? theres nothing wrong with cutting out some of the basically useless carbs. wow not eating 1400 calories a day of white rice is mocked
>why do people get mad at keto?
They constantly shit up this board with retarded facebook-mom tier dietary advice that does long-term harm to your body > theres nothing wrong with cutting out some of the basically useless carbs
Carbohydrates are essential for brain function and muscle growth > wow not eating 1400 calories a day of white rice is mocked
If you're replacing those rice calories with butter and meat in the name of health then you're a retard who deserves ridicule
>Carbohydrates are essential for brain function and muscle growth
Is that why Ric Draisin and Arnold ate primarily protein and shied away from bread and sugar?
>taking off one of my tires
so what is this supposed to be equivalent to? restricting a single macronutrient? the implication that it is correct and true that human being require all three macronutrients to survive. well that's fucking stupid. >so I can increase the longevity of my car's engine
implying that removing a tire (an essential component of your vehicle) is equivalent to burning only ketones. also very fucking stupid. the better analogy here is >I'm using X fuel because I'm already hauling around a fuckton of it. >why should I go to the gas station when I could instead use all the fuel I'm already hauling around? >It's my fucking fuel, might as well use it. I might consider going to a gas station at some point, one said fuel reserves start dwindling, but for now I don't have to worry about that. >It's more efficient because I can keep moving without worrying about a fuel stop. >Also I'm not going to say that gas station fuel is tainted or whatever, but I seem to get better fuel mileage on the fuel I'm currently using. Don't have to change my filter as often, either.
I mean I know you're shitposting but could you maybe be less retarded?
>the implication that it is correct and true that human being require all three macronutrients to survive.
It is true. If you don't get enough dietary glucose, your body spends valuable energy converting glucogenic amino acids into glucose instead.
>spends valuable energy
doesn't your body "spend valuable energy" creating vitamins, amino acids, and peptides from precursors that you could otherwise consume directly?
Imagine conflating carbohydrate consumption with veganism. Omnivores mog keto fats and vegans. Every champion athlete, every world-recording sportsman, every great outdoorsman, have all been omnivores.
>Every champion athlete, every world-recording sportsman, every great outdoorsman
I'm an omnivore myself but what you're saying is not really true. People have achieved similar performance on both a carnivore diet and vegan diet.
For example Dave Mcleod could be described as the greatest living all-round climber (if by all-round you include sport, trad, ice, free solo, boulder).
Here's him performing the highest-graded free solo ever performed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvJOCJh1vpY
And here's him ranting like an autist about his positive experiences with the carnivore diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey93GV-oKQY
Conversly, Alex Megos is a very successful sport/boulder climber. He was the first person in the world to onsite a 9a route. He has climbed two 9b+ routes (for context there are less than 20 people in history who have climbed a 9b+ route). He also came 9th at the last olympics. He did all of this on a vegan diet.
Not my fault you don't follow the sport.
I'm sure you can find similar examples of high performing vegan or keto/carnivore athletes in many other sports.
2 months ago
Anonymous
both of those people have acheived more than you will in your entire life
2 months ago
Anonymous
What does using Zoomer Judeo Blackfied slang do to prove your point? They reached the pinnacle of physical human capabilities within their discipline. There is knowledge to be gained from looking at it. Your remedial gay logic would have you worshipping Billy Herrington as a world class athlete.
>People have achieved similar performance on both a carnivore diet and vegan diet
After a lifetime of being omnivores and reaping the benefits of being omnivorous.
>Dave McLeod
He's 44 years old.
>him performing
That was 3 years ago, he was 3-4 years on keto at that point. Again, a lifetime as an omnivore led to him being able to do this.
>Alex Megos
29 years old, went vegan in 2021.
Also all top climbers like Ondra, Megos and others are on roids.
What the fuck is your argument here?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>He's 44 years old.
And still performing at an elite level and continuing to make strength gains (after 7 years of on/off carnivore dieting). How many 44 year olds can say the same? If you skim the video I linked he even compares strength gains on his carnivore diet vs off it (although I suspect for him there is a bit of a placebo/confirmation bias, given how the diet helped him in other ways).
>Also all top climbers like Ondra, Megos and others are on roids.
Lol. Lmao even.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>NOOOOO, CLIMBERS CAN'T BE ON GEAR
lol, so your opinion is trash after all
But all these normal sized people are eating loads of carbs, why aren't they getting fat?
2 months ago
Anonymous
they didn't eat as much as the guys who got fat, who were also eating carbs when they got fat in the first place
2 months ago
Anonymous
So if fat people and regular sized people both eat carbs, but it was the amount of food that made the former group fat, is it fair to say that how much you eat is at least as important as what you eat?
Is there some way of measuring the energy value of different food stuffs? Some way to compare the available energy in different foods...
We could derive some kind of principle.. Energy In vs Energy Out.. Hmmm....
2 months ago
Anonymous
>is it fair to say that how much you eat is at least as important as what you eat
yeah
nothing I said was against CICO, just a statement that "burning valuable energy" is that CO part
That is a product of psychology - the people who are just starting x are more likely to talk about x. The people just start diet are more likely to be fat. Therefore the people talking about keto are most likely to be fat. It is not related to whether keto is good or bad. Unfortunately, takes a slightly higher than room temperature IQ to figure these things out.
for those of us who struggle with sugar cravings, keto gives us an option so we can live for a few weeks and not feel the highs and lows of glycogen levels. it's nice, after a week of being on keto i don't crave sweets or any unhealthy.
Vegans hate keto because their entire "salads are healthy" platform relies on the assumption that humans have to eat plants in order to live optimally, while the natural progression of a ketogenic diet might lead someone to experiment with cutting out all carbs and finding they actually feel better than with carbs. It's evidence-based philosophy that the religious diet preachers hate.
>finding they actually feel better than with carbs
Yet nobody, absolutely nobody, sticks with keto long-term. The only people famous for claiming to do so are people selling that diet.
There are plenty of people throughout history who have been on ketogenic diets. The longevity of the ketogenic diet hasn't been disproven and there are strong evidences for people living longer and outcompeting the dumber and slower carb eaters.
Non argument, but then again, that's all IST ever throws my way. I'm waiting for the day someone can convince me otherwise, but it's all terrible research or anecdotal
Everyone who has ever been born, including you, but that's a given.
Anyone who has ever fasted enters a ketogenic state to sustain themselves. Ketone bodies are created from stored fat to fuel the cells in your body that can use it.
Being afraid of ketosis is very childish, since it's the primary metabolic state.
Just stop eating plants, okay?
>plenty of people throughout history who have been on ketogenic diets
Who? Also, how long and why didn't they stick to it and was it verified and why is it that after 50 years of nonstop pushing of that bullshit counting from Atkins with millions keto books sold and millions of youtube views and 3 million subs on r/keto long-term population studies on effect of keto are impossible to do BECAUSE NOBOBY STICKS TO IT with quit percentage at 2 year mark on Virta Health own studies being 70% WITH ACTIVE COACHING AND PROVIDED MEALS.
Atkins diet fails because it includes carbohydrates. This should be apparent if you read the thread. Atkins is not inherently ketogenic and fails for those who wander into insulin spikes.
There is no long-term data on ketogenic diets in the modern sense, simply because insulin was only discovered in America less than 80 years ago. Ketogenic diets have existed prior with persons who eat only meat. Obviously.
Without ketosis, humanity in the ice age would've not fared so well. Can't quite pick apples from nothing.
Humans did NOT live ATOP the CONTINENTAL GLACIER you fucking RETARD
2 months ago
Anonymous
>humans can't exist in cold because... because I said so!
Eskimo denialism. Plant-basedboys are so pathetic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Okay you're an actual retard, let's make this simple: tell me what did mammoths and other animals eat atop 2km high continental ice shelf?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Think your statement through for a bit more, you might understand why you sound brain damaged.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Your brain is astonishingly defective. Let me walk you through this really simple >you claim humans totally lived without any carbohydrates atop continental ice shelf eating only meat which comes from animals >however animals also have to eat something >but nothing grows atop 2km of ice >animals can't live there
What meat did the humans eat there then?
>not real keto
You people are exactly like communists, first cheering in full psychosis how it or latest rebranding of it is the best thing ever that totally works, then it doesn't work as always, and you start saying every time it wasn't real keto
Why would anyone eat a high carb diet? They must have put absolutely no thought into the topic themselves and merely trust the government.
I mean, have you ever wondered why we need to brush our teeth? There is literally only one substance that causes tooth decay - carbohydrate rich foods. There is also only one macronutrient that the body doesn't need - carbohydrates. There is also only one macronutrient that causes blood sugar spikes and insulin resistance - carbohydrates.
It is pretty fucking obvious, not necessarily that you should do keto, but you should avoid high carb diets like the fucking plague. You should try to limit high carb foods as much as you fucking can. Holy fuck you would have to be stupid to think anything else.
>Why would anyone eat a high carb diet? They must have put absolutely no thought into the topic themselves and merely trust the government.
The government advises a mixed macro diet
>eat enough protein to maximize muscle growth >eat enough fat for hormonal production while favoring SFAs and MUFAs and avoiding PUFAs >fill in the rest of my caloric budget with carbs
No more schizo nonsense, this is the truth.
>the body's normal function is somehow bad
Sure, deplete your glycogen stores while you're at it too. I eat over 100g carbs with my breakfast and I have a full six pack with some minor oblique definition. You're just as delusional as the vegantards
The randle cycle isn't something that "activates" because it's never switched off.
Your body is constantly in a state of using fatty acids, ketones and glucose for energy. It's in a constant state of dynamic flux. You don't switch from 100% carb burning to 100% fat burning.
Stop getting your microbiology from chiropractors.
Yes, that's what I said. If you were familiar with the randle cycle you'd know that long chain fatty acids and glucose shut out glucose absorption, leading to glycation when there is an over abundance of glucose in the blood. This happens readily and easily when you consume carbohydrates. What you've said is meaningless unnecessary static to me, as the existence of the randle cycle shows preferential treatment towards fatty acids against glucose absorption into the cell.
I know that. That's why the steady stream of glucose your body produces in lieu of exogenous carbohydrates is balanced out so as to not glycate your tissues. Throwing more glucose into the mix just unbalances this act for no real reason.
Steady blood glucose is a good thing
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's quite simple. You consume exogenous glucose and your body reduces glucagon and reduces gluconeogenesis.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And then my body releases insulin which shuttles all of that glucose to my hungry muscles. Yum yum, thank you based body
2 months ago
Anonymous
get a play-pen, you two
2 months ago
Anonymous
And then your eventual hyperinsulinemia causes insulin resistance on top of glycation. This is why we check our HbA1c
2 months ago
Anonymous
Reducing gluconeogenesis won't remove the hyperglycemia. Gluconeogenesis isn't the issue here.
I'm athletic and metabolically healthy so I have good insulin sensitivity. Sedentary people shouldn't give diet advice to people that actually use their bodies.
Love me carbs, love me sprinting, love me cycling, love me weightlifting. Simple as.
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's not how insulin works, buddy. Your blood tests won't reveal the truth unless your doctor orders a C-peptide test, which he won't, since you're not complaining of any symptoms. You will pay the price in your later years, as insulin resistance is a slow killer.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not complaining of any symptoms because I'm not prediabetic. The majority of people AREN'T diabetic despite consuming carbohydrate. The vast majority of T2D are overweight and sedentary.
The number of lean, athletic people with T2D is so low as to be virtually nonexistent.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, this is a misattribution thanks to the HbA1c tests commonly used to diagnose diabetes after hyperglycemia is discovered. You can detect the presence of insulin-resistance (prediabetes) a decade sooner using a C-peptide test. Measure hyperinsulinemia, not hyperglycemia. Only when there's a critical point will there be hyperglycemia, although without a significant dietary change, it's practically certain.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Lol whatever dude, keep trying to diagnose me based on literally zero information all you want, it doesn't change reality - lean, athletic people develop T2D so rarely that it is practically a non event. In the few cases that it does happen there is generally a family history of it, indicating some genetic predisposition.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's not tested for, simply because of the assumption that athletes are healthy. Tracking athletes and their later life health tells the full story, one you'll have to live through, I'm afraid.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, this is a misattribution thanks to the HbA1c tests commonly used to diagnose diabetes after hyperglycemia is discovered. You can detect the presence of insulin-resistance (prediabetes) a decade sooner using a C-peptide test. Measure hyperinsulinemia, not hyperglycemia. Only when there's a critical point will there be hyperglycemia, although without a significant dietary change, it's practically certain.
>j-just you wait, only two more weeks and the carbs will kill you this time FOR SURE
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
[...]
Not him, but I'm 29 and I eat a shitload of carbs, always been leading an active lifestyle, played a bunch of sports, lift weights and literally never had problems with insulin or blood sugar levels.
A sedentary lifestyle is literally your biggest enemy.
The advice to get your c-peptides tested is there for you to take. I think it's a good thing that there are people leading an active lifestyle with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. The separation of the myth of active lifestyle allowing for the safe consumption of a poisonous diet from the minds of the masses is a good thing.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>limp wristed sedentary bitch cope
Only 5% of sumo wrestlers have diabetes.
Over 10% of the US has diabetes.
Sumo wrestlers are fat as fuck and eat boatloads of carbs.
A sedentary lifestyle will drag you down no matter the diet, we are designed to move.
2 months ago
Anonymous
There isn't an exercise in the world that will get rid of your insulin, anon. You fundamentally don't understand your disease, yet.
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
The advice to get your c-peptides tested is there for you to take. I think it's a good thing that there are people leading an active lifestyle with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. The separation of the myth of active lifestyle allowing for the safe consumption of a poisonous diet from the minds of the masses is a good thing.
in reality even with zerocarb you don't even have low glucose, hba1c or insulin compared to people in great metabolic health, so acting smug about it makes you look even dumber
2 months ago
Anonymous
>get rid of your insulin
Your body constantly produces insulin, retard.
You fundamentally don't understand what you're talking about.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Hyperinsulinemia, which is what you're seeking, implies that you have more insulin than a healthy individual. You're not going to beat me with words, so just keep seething.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Hyperinsulinemia
Exercise has been proven to reduce and prevent it.
>You're not going to beat me with words
???
Reddit's the other way, kid.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No exercise in the world gets rid of insulin, which your sick body overproduces in response to carbohydrates being crammed into your belly to fuel your activities with short bursts of dirty energy. Insulin resistance comes next, as your body can't use the insulin it has effectively thanks to glucose being blocked out. I've already explained this, so you're just trying too hard and coming back to earlier points. Eat meat.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>gets rid of insulin
You won't get rid of insulin in any way.
>overproduces
Oh no, when you eat a bunch of carbs, your body temporarily produces more insulin to be able to absorb carbs effectively, this is absolute insanity, you will die!
lmao
>Insulin resistance comes next
Because...?
>glucose being blocked out
???
2 months ago
Anonymous
>body can't use the insulin it has effectively thanks to glucose being blocked out
Actually insulin is blocked out from cells preventing its normal operation (enabling glucose to enter cell) and the one and only thing doing that blocking is intramyocellural lipids (fat inside cells) which is why people doing keto start reporting abnormally high blood sugar levels and which is also why weight-loss reverses T2 diabetes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Cool head-canon. However that's extremely retarded when you think about it for a minute.
Like, everything you assumed was false and illogical. Insulin can be blocked without resistance, otherwise cells would be overwhelmed with glucose and die. This is not a defect. Jesus Christ, I'm talking to robots, I have to be.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>source: my ass
2 months ago
Anonymous
You don't understand the difference between normal receptor regulation ("blocking") and abnormal diseased blocking (excess fat in place where it should not be). Because you're a fucking retard, just like every single keto fanatic I've ever talked to.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, seriously, think about it. How would that even work? That would kill everyone who stored fat. Why would we store fat if it were lethal? Please, think hard on this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Jesus you're a fucking idiot holy shit. We store fat in ADIPOSE TISSUE but when it is inside MUSCLE CELLS it's in the WRONG PLACE
2 months ago
Anonymous
>consumes fat and carbs >insulin gets released to feed cells >fat enters cell and locks carbohydrate from entering the cell >insulin released from consuming carbohydrate fails to work and the body produces more insulin >this preferential treatment towards fat is seen as the reason for insulin resistance rather than the needless consumption of carbohydrate when the body already has fat
Okay. You're feral. I've already gone through this. What point is there in consuming exogenous carbohydrates if they're going to release insulin? It's not fat that causes insulin to spike. Get over it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
post body
2 months ago
Anonymous
Fat enter cells without insulin. Insulin has nothing to do with it. Goddamnit thats the entire point of keto diet, you should fucking know at least that much?! And that has the side effect of impaired glucose tolerance and insulin response, aka diabetes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Meanwhile in reality, literally any exercise had benefits on your insulin sensitivity and allows muscle utilisation of glucose regardless of insulin state. Exercise is consistently and universally recommended as the primary mitigation strategy for T2D.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10683091/
>Up to two hours after exercise, glucose uptake is in part elevated due to insulin independent mechanisms, probably involving a contraction-induced increase in the amount of GLUT4 associated with the plasma membrane and T-tubules.
>However, a single bout of exercise can increase insulin sensitivity for at least 16 h post exercise in healthy as well as NIDDM subjects
>It is concluded that physical training can be considered to play an important, if not essential role in the treatment and prevention of insulin insensitivity.
2 months ago
Anonymous
There isn't an exercise in the world that will get rid of your insulin, anon. You fundamentally don't understand your disease, yet.
Hyperinsulinemia, which is what you're seeking, implies that you have more insulin than a healthy individual. You're not going to beat me with words, so just keep seething.
>humans can't exist in cold because... because I said so!
Eskimo denialism. Plant-basedboys are so pathetic.
Cool head-canon. However that's extremely retarded when you think about it for a minute.
Like, everything you assumed was false and illogical. Insulin can be blocked without resistance, otherwise cells would be overwhelmed with glucose and die. This is not a defect. Jesus Christ, I'm talking to robots, I have to be.
No, seriously, think about it. How would that even work? That would kill everyone who stored fat. Why would we store fat if it were lethal? Please, think hard on this.
post body
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's not how insulin works, buddy. Your blood tests won't reveal the truth unless your doctor orders a C-peptide test, which he won't, since you're not complaining of any symptoms. You will pay the price in your later years, as insulin resistance is a slow killer.
No, this is a misattribution thanks to the HbA1c tests commonly used to diagnose diabetes after hyperglycemia is discovered. You can detect the presence of insulin-resistance (prediabetes) a decade sooner using a C-peptide test. Measure hyperinsulinemia, not hyperglycemia. Only when there's a critical point will there be hyperglycemia, although without a significant dietary change, it's practically certain.
Not him, but I'm 29 and I eat a shitload of carbs, always been leading an active lifestyle, played a bunch of sports, lift weights and literally never had problems with insulin or blood sugar levels.
A sedentary lifestyle is literally your biggest enemy.
2 months ago
Anonymous
These seem to be exceptions rather than rules. The majority of people are fat, and get diabetic as they become older.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Even the majority of fat old people don't become diabetic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Reducing gluconeogenesis won't remove the hyperglycemia. Gluconeogenesis isn't the issue here.
>be typical ketolard >lose 10lbs of water weight in a week from no more glycogen storage >forever proclaim the magic of the keto diet constantly to the point of annoyance and still be fat 10 years later anyway despite le low insulin
So Dana White just lost water weight huh? hahaha. You dumb head. I don't do keto, just low carb, and don't need to lose any weight, but it is quite obvious that low carb diets have worked for people more than just water weight.
Makes me feel good
I get more foggy when not running off ketones and crash. I also perform well in the gym even with low carb, my lifts stay above 90% of my typical carbed out lifts, and Im doing olympic lifts just fine off of ketones even if not optimal. I just like the mental edge. I still eat rather lean (140g protein, medium fat, high fiber) and keep a moderate deficit.
>the failure of a single person is representative of the failure that the entirety of humanity will endure if they choose a similar path
if that's your logic there are plenty of people out there who went vegan and went back once they realized that it wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
Inb4 a keto lard tries to claim that this is evidence that carbs are bad for you because these poor people wasted away and atrophied their bodies on the rice diet.
Notice the lack of fats. This is unsustainable for a lifestyle, but works because it doesn't cockblock the sugar as hard as mixing fats and carbs tends to.
I know this is a bot thread on a bot site but I would just like to say that grains are shit and carbs in general are useless and only good for staying ravenously hungry and gaining weight. Thanks.
Funny then how I was swimming yesterday as usual (1,5km constant speed nonstop, 200m rapid max force intervals), came back ravenously hungry as usual, and blunted that hunger with some bread, low-fat spread and thin turkey deli and rice and tofu, as usual. Maybe it was all about that 20g of turkey slices for taste hmm.
what the fuck is up with these meme diets? Every five years or so some new fad diet pops up, gets shilled to death, and then fades into obscurity after nobody loses weight on it. Just eat less you fat fucks
Keto made it easier for me to do IF and eventually multiple day fasting. Some people are simply addicts. Sugar is a useful tool. So are amphetamines. Overuse is a fine line and varies between individuals.
Keto works really well for people that want to target FAT only and keep muscle. Its literally been working for years. It's what every single competition body builder does.
here is the problem tho. People are weak and some cant do it so they try to dispute it. Just like a cold plunge. You can hate on it all you want but it works when you cycle it.
Never has a food choice recommendation caused so much gay lisping seethe to establishmentarianists. For that reason alone I started doing it, I keep doing it because I was pleasantly surprised with the results.
Well yeah, it's the multibillion dollar industry of meat, eggs, and green vegetables. Don't pretend like you need to be a retard and eat food with "keto" on the label.
>Keto is a multibllion dollar diet industry.
Somebody tell him about the wheat and seed oil industries.
Diet industry as in selling a diet and related products, not food production. It's a fucking huge business.
www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ketogenic-diet-market >USD 9.57 billion
I don’t intentionally do Keto but I just realized that in the past week the only carbs I have had are 5 apples and 2 potatoes. Baked chicken thighs are just too OP for a cut.
Keto is inherently biologically flawed for fat loss morons. You have literally but your body into overtime mode by tricking it into thinking that it's in a survival mode where it needs to burn what ever auxiliary energy source it can to survive. However, in order to keep this going you need to constantly be eating fat and protein. Using it for weight loss doesn't make sense because your body is really fighting to keep the fat on while still trying to use as little as possible to survive off of. You are pretty much driving on a spare tire and slowly removing each lug nut until the whole wheel comes off.
idk my fat dad is doing keto again and basically starving himself and is compeltely in denial thinking he's doing anything significant, like a week into the diet
I know he will fail it once again, and this is like the 4th time he will be on this shitty diet
I knew that he would stay fat forever when he told me point black once that nearing the end of the keto diet he was on, he said he started dreaming nightly about food and drooling about it
Have him switch to low carb high protein and start IF
You can’t expect somebody to get their diet in control on the first time it took me probably 10 times trying to diet before getting it right and learning consistency
Low carb diets gets normies who only half care to the right sort of results without them having to learn anything, and it appeals because it let's them have shit that other diets restrict.
Smart people who do it gradually just learn nutrition and end up with something more sustainable and less dogmatic.
As a based Omnivore on a 75%+ plant based diet, with animal products in the rest (including meat), I hope that you understand that Ketotards and Vegans are both retarded.
Keto is good if you have a lot of fat to burn. It's not magic. It just keeps you from having insulin spikes so you don't want to snack. You naturally eat at a calorie deficit and you loose weight.
I don't know what is hard about that for some people to understand. You don't get cravings. You don't snack. You eat a normal meal of broccoli and grilled chicken and the weight just comes off.
>keto works because you naturally don't want to snack and you naturally eat at below your cal needs
We hear of people "falling off the keto wagon" all the time going on uncontrolled binges.
I don't know why we have to keep talking about this. Everyone's healthy meals look the same. Baked or grilled chicken with veggies. Nuts. Eggs. Cheese.
If you're not on a cut, eat more fruit, sweet veggies. Sometimes eat pastas and rice. Avoid sugar and soda.
It's literally the same shit. Most cut diets look like what keto guys eat. No one on fit is easy butter wrapped bacon.
Plant based diets are the healthiest period. Look at traditional jap diet, nothing but rice and vegetables with a little bit of fish here and there, and they have the most centenarians. Same with every single place where people live the longest and healthiest.
Yes, keto has it's place if you want to lose weight or have untreatable seizures, or to mimic fasting to induce autophagy, but for a maintaining kind of everyday diet, plant based is the way to go.
Why is that so hard to grasp and understand for so many people? g
Thanks to plants and agriculture humans ascended from only being hunter gatherers, making way for modern civilization, enlightenment, science, medicine you name it.
Nice picture of more robust skulls from a time where you needed to be more robust.
>Plant based diets are the healthiest period.
Stopped reading there
Vegantards, carnitards, and ketotards all get the rope
Omnivorechads rule this earth
Plant based doesn't mean vegan retard..it means the majority of food should come from whole plant based sources
>Plant based doesn't mean vegan retard..it means the majority of food should come from whole plant based sources
I prefer half and half, especially because I'm very big on eggs and dairy, but if that works for you then fine
re-read my question again then, eggs are not meat, they're as close to a plant as you can get without being a plant
2 months ago
Anonymous
????
2 months ago
Anonymous
if it looks like a seed and it cracks like a seed it's a seed is what I'm saying I hope I was clear and I wish you a good night I have to attend to some personal stuff now think about it!
>Plant based doesn't mean vegan retard..it means the majority of food should come from whole plant based sources
Sounds retarded, gay, and inconsistent with the diet human beings were designed for (60% animal derive + 40% everything else).
>Plant based diets are the healthiest period.
Stopped reading there
Vegantards, carnitards, and ketotards all get the rope
Omnivorechads rule this earth
What are you even supposed to do anyway? At this point it feels like there's a coordinated effort to mess with people or something, because whenever you BTFO the vegans or whatever, ketofags/carnifags enter the thread and start fighting you as well instead of fighting the vegans. You'd think that the different camps of diet cultists would fight each other but no they're always arguing with the normal people in the threads for some reason. It just gets annoying when you spend half an hour grabbing all the relevant data to BTFO some stupid vegan, then a ketofag enters the thread and now you're supposed to spend another half hour going over studies to BTFO the ketofag as well? It's just a waste of time
Anon, I don't know if you're still there, but this is a demoralization website now. It's not a place for discussion and I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say that. There is no active board on this site where you can have a real discussion anymore without this kind of shit happening. I spent so much time watching the decline before I had enough and the longer you stay away from the site the more obvious it is (and the worse it gets). I don't even know why I'm back here now but I wish you well and hope you can find a better place to speak to people, anon.
>I don't know if you're still there, but this is a demoralization website now. It's not a place for discussion and I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say that.
I understand that perfectly, but I'm trying to brute-force good threads into existence regardless. For reference, the whitepill and redpill threads that are up rn were both posted by me, and I think the discussion in both of those is infinitely better than 99% of the threads on this board (and IST in general). I should probably stop posting in threads like these tbh, you're right in that nothing of value gets posted here. I mean just look at this thread, most of it is just strawmanning and shitflinging dumbasses fighting eachother instead of having an actual discussion. >I don't even know why I'm back here now but I wish you well and hope you can find a better place to speak to people, anon.
Thanks bro, I try my best. In spite of all the issues I mentioned about this place though, every other place on the internet is even more insufferable to me so my only choice is to figure out something here. It is possible to have good conversations and discussions here, you just have to work really hard for it and I'm willing to do that.
Best of luck, anon. I know it sounds stupid, but I unironically saw my life changed in multiple ways for the better because of this website and it has pained me to see it rapidly deteriorate since 2016 and the rise of the culture war and other mind-warping nonsense. So I'd love to see it kept alive in some form or fashion, too, and I admire you for keeping up the good fight. You're a real one.
>I know it sounds stupid, but I unironically saw my life changed in multiple ways for the better because of this website
Same, diving into the sea of piss and shit to grab the diamonds is worth it IMO. Despite all the BS I've gained so much from this place it's unreal >So I'd love to see it kept alive in some form or fashion, too
That's the idea, even if you can't fix the website or the board as a whole, you can carve out your own little area that still has high quality discussion. It makes the most sense since there's no way to easily fix all of IST or something along those lines, it's just not tenable >and I admire you for keeping up the good fight. You're a real one.
Thanks brother
most meme diets work in the short term by limiting goyslop, but they all have problems that adherents ignore because they get emotionally attached to their consumer choices from decades of brainwashing. I do mostly wfpb but thats only bc of my genetics.
A realistic version of that comic would be asking why a person is using ethanol free fuel and then the other person saying that the car runs more efficiently on ethanol free fuel.
>SUGAR IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>SATURATED FAT IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>CARBS ARE.. LE BAD!!
No.
>CHOLESTEROL IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>STARCH IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>GLUTEN IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>LACTOSE IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>RED MEAT IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>EGGS ARE.. LE BAD!!
No.
>FISH IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>DAIRY IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>FRUIT IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>VEGETABLES ARE.. LE BAD!!
No.
>POULTRY IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>GRAINS ARE.. LE BAD!!
No.
>ORGAN MEAT IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
>WATER IS.. LE BAD!!
No.
God made all this tasty food for me to eat, therefore I'm going to eat it. Simple as
All of those are good as long as you don't consume too much. Sugar is especially easy to overeat considering how much of it is in a lot of modern food.
>WATER IS.. LE BAD!!
Who says this
>Who says this
The hardcore raw meat crowd. Sv3rige and Aajonus.
>Who says this
Your water is full of fluoride, microplastices, and estrogen. Just start making water at home. I buy ice from eskimos and cook my own water at home.
That's the thing. Sugar is normally never a problem if you only consume whole foods.
kys schizo
baseado
>simple as
british people aren't real. No wonder you're such a butterball
/MCG/ - Midwit Coping General
> God made all this tasty food for me to eat,
so you agree, processed food is bad
>so you agree, processed food is bad
Yes, that's why processed food is not on that list. Eat whole foods instead
Guide in pinned already has all macronutrient/calorie intake amounts in relation to weight, why don't people just follow that?
Because you are unironically in the top 1% of posters here who actually read the sticky. Respect.
The inclusion of something as gay and baseless as a TDEE calculator invalidates the sticky
>here's your totally scientific BMR
>and here's one of 3 nice round, magic numbers to add on to that, depending on how active you say you are :*~~
Yeah individuals vary massively, which is why you should use a smartwatch. Knowing your HR + respiration rate = extremely useful estimate of total calorie expenditure each day, much more accurate than just inputting your numbers and "activity level" to some website.
Human metabolism can be closely equated to a car engine. Does a car always get the same mileage?
>eat vegetables and meat
>some berries or an apple for desert
>HOLY FUCK YOU LITERAL RETARD DIE COMMIT SUICIDE YOU'RE KILLING YOURSELF SCHIZO
uhhh based
Or be like my dad:
>use keto as excuse to eat way too large proportions of meat.
>Still fat
>be retarded
>do retarded stuff
Correct.
You won't reliably stay in ketosis eating like the primitive humans that ate all vegetables and fruit they could find. Average apple alone is about 10 grams of carbs. You really think your ancestors would find an apple tree with dozens of apples on it after starving for 3 days and go
>yeah I'm only gonna have 1 or 2, wouldn't want to kick myself out of ketosis lmao
The original wild versions of a number of fruits and vegetables were nearly inedible and only became palatable through years and years of cultivation. Primitive man mostly subsisted on wild game.
>nearly inedible
>nearly
So they were edible and hunter-gatherers did eat them.
They were extremely fibrous, full of seeds, and in the case of the fruits, no sweeter than a modern carrot. There was barely anything to eat.
>yes fruits were edible back then and our ancestors did eat them but but but but
Okay, I accept your concession anon, calm down.
If you can call that edible, sure.
They were obviously edible since they were cultivated for centuries and became what they are today.
Lmao you fucking retard.
If they were already edible, why were they cultivated and selectively bred in the first place? You're not very smart.
>why were they cultivated and selectively bred in the first place?
To bear more fruit due to increasing requirements for food. This is an issue even nowadays, we are modifying plants to bear more fruit.
You're an actual retard lmfao.
>omg if dogs were domesticated, then why did we breed them selectively??????
kek
>To bear more fruit due to increasing requirements for food
>literally points towards vegetables/fruit that were selectively cultivated to bear more fruit due to increases in population size
Okay? Thanks for agreeing with me I guess lol
And selectively cultivated to be more edible since they were barely edible as is. You want to ignore that part but anybody with a brain can see it.
>barely edible
Then they wouldn't become the backbone of multi-billion dollar industries, retard.
Is this a bot? We're talking about the original wild forms of fruits and vegetables. "Dollars" didn't even exist when the wild versions were all there was.
>original wild forms
Yeah, which were edible to the point humans decided to harvest them on a mass scale.
Do you have a hole in your brain ketoschizo?
AFTER they were domesticated to be palatable to anybody outside of an extreme survival situation. Once again, you're not very good at this.
They were domesticated because they were a good source of food, not the other way around.
You're coping hard, ketotard.
>points back again at an image showing fruits that were domesticated because they were a good source of food to the point that they became the backbone of civilisation
I accept your concession yet again, anon.
Domesticated because they were barely edible as-is. You keep tiptoeing around that.
>barely edible
Headcanon.
They were edible to the point they were a good source of food on which civilisation could thrive.
People were growing them because they were eating them. Occasionally, a mutation would generated a larger or flesher or sweeter variety which was eminently preferable, but this was a side-effect of cultivation, not the reason for it.
>People were growing them because they were eating them.
Nobody is disputing that they were eaten, but the fact of the matter is that they were nothing like how we know them today and were selectively bred over thousands of years to reach the forms we are familiar with (not even getting into the GMO issue which is its own can of worms). The idea that they were eaten in the hunter-gatherer days anywhere near as often as they are eaten now is ludicrous simply because hunter-gatherers primarily subsisted on animal products and would only have resorted to eating wild fruits and vegetables out of desperation, especially considering that they were fibrous, full of seeds, and lacking in flavor compared to modern variations.
>Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics, you fucking schizo.
And they barely ate fruits and vegetables. That became more common later when the age of agriculture began.
>when the age of agriculture began
So they were edible to the point of allowing the age of agriculture to happen.
Thanks for your concession yet again anon.
Edible after agriculture, yes. Thank you for continuing to play dumb to try to score points in a petty Internet argument.
>after agriculture
Before agriculture, thus allowing agriculture.
See
for reference.
Too easy, ketoschizo.
>agricultural society selectively breeding fruits and vegetables to make them edible and not purely fibrous, tasteless, and full of seeds is comparable to selectively breeding chickens to be larger
Alright, we're done here.
Unironically yes. The old chickens werent just smaller, they had far less meat on them, they were lot more sinewy and cartiligenous, ie less edible.
society selectively breeding fruits and vegetables to make them edible
They were already edible.
>purely fibrous
Brainlet take, they had macronutrients, otherwise they wouldn't become staple food.
>is comparable to selectively breeding chickens
The principle is the same. Chickens back then were barely useful for meat and eggs, they were selectively bred for it.
Ketoschizo shenanigans.
nta, are you aware that fiber can ferment in the gut into short chain fatty acids? also, chicken and eggs didn't change their macronutrient ratios as much as fruits and grains did. therefore, our ancestors ate less carbohydrates overall.
>chicken and eggs didn't change their macronutrient ratios as much as fruits and grains did
why are you lying? modern frankenchickens have more fats compared to the non crossbred species, at least that's the case at where i'm from
I said not as much. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that man made fruits have a lot of carbs. Wild fruits have a lot of fiber. That means that ancestral diet had less carbohydrates than the modern one.
modern broilers have much more fat, just try making schmaltz from wild chickens or even non factory farmed broilers, the yields are quite pathetic compared to factory farmed broilers
>chicken and eggs didn't change their macronutrient ratios
moron have you seen how much trash is in mass produced chicken meat?
>our ancestors ate less carbohydrates
They ate less in general. Malnutrition is running through your and my genes.
What is your point? Yes, our modern diet is shit, I am aware.
>city dweller trying to talk about chicken
Lmao.
Even small farm chickens tend to have tougher meat than mass farm chickens. A lot of factors go into it.
You wouldn't get even half of the amount of meat out of them all those centuries ago.
post body
look up Charles Bronson, that's me
>hunter-gatherers primarily subsisted on animal products
Read this
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23148
>Outside of circumpolar regions, where animal products make up the bulk of nutrition (Bang, Dyerberg, & Sinclair, 1980; Draper, 1977; Kuhnlein, Appavoo, Morrison, Soueida, & Pierrot,1994; Kuhnlein et al., 1996), many of the diets are dominated by plant resources. The two most extreme examples are the !Kung, who are reported to have obtained 60–80% of their diet from wild plants when small bands were still foraging full time (Lee, 1968), and the Hadza, who consume approximately 50–65% of their diet from plant foods (Marlowe et al., 2014).
Hadza eat 600 different plants/yr and have excellent microbiome diversity. Our microbes break plant material down into fatty acids just like monke
You are being disingenuous. It doesn't matter if we ate them, the first point you made is that prehistoric man ate fruits full of sugar, which anon is saying is incorrect since it was mostly fiber. You are fixating on the wrong part of the argument.
>the first point you made is that prehistoric man ate fruits full of sugar
No. Learn to read moron.
>wrong part of the argument
No, ketotard is trying to say people somehow didn't eat fruit because it was inedible and then somehow it evolved overnight to its current form lmao
>You won't reliably stay in ketosis eating like the primitive humans that ate all vegetables and fruit they could find. Average apple alone is about 10 grams of carbs. You really think your ancestors would find an apple tree with dozens of apples on it after starving for 3 days and go
I was referencing this argument. I thought that was you. What is your point then?
My point is that you're retarded.
Gotcha. Can't say I am surprised by lack of intelligent response.
You're fat, so by default you're not intelligent.
>What is your point then?
To antagonize people and shit up the site, like every other bot and shill that makes up the majority of active users on this shithole.
*every other bot and shill that make up
Just keep it short with people/bots like that. It's of no use to argue in circles.
It's always the same thing on this site nowadays. There's no real discussion, it's nothing more or less than demoralization, shilling, shitposting, social engineering, and/or useless static to prevent anything productive from happening since the site is too useful as a honeypot to be shut down outright. It's too bad because it used to be a really special place to me but now it's a toilet like every all 3 other sites that people use now.
That ketard has no capability of logical thinking whatsoever. He literally doesn't recognize backwards logic. Then again if he is who I think it is, it's an uneducated developmentally impaired guy living on a family farm as a farm-hand
If chickens in the 1950s were already edible, why did we selectively breed them to grow larger and fatter?!
Dietary fiber is metabolized as fat, and very poorly at that. No one is enjoying that shit beyond a survival situation.
>but but but but x2
It's alright anon, we already concluded that you admit I'm right.
>survival situation
So you mean 99.9% of human history?
And then, out of nowhere, humanity just one day decided to put in 10 000 year continuous collective effort to selectively breed plants absolutely nobody ever ate, for no reason at all.
yeah pretty much
You're not very bright.
ironic coming from an actual midwit
>banana
The banana we know today was only created in the 19th century, people were eating bananas for thousands of years prior. What's the source for this stupid shit anyway?
Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics, you fucking schizo.
You literally don't know shit about biology.
Also this
Yeah corn just one day showed up as a 7' tall grass with seeds the size of entire heads of wheat, magically on their own.
>Hunter-gatherers had no concept of selective breeding and genetics
This is debatable as the selection and breeding of more docile animals was an integral part of domestication. The same thing with purposely culling plants based upon their fruit size, seed size, or edible mass. They didn't have a system until Mendel and relied more on an intuitive understanding of heritability. But the practice of intentional breeding goes back to the later eras of hunter gatherers that began to domesticate animals like wolves with traits that were more favorable to supporting them in their hunts. Early agriculturalists did intentionally breed plants based on desirable traits like dogs for herding or grasses for seed size and this is undeniable.
Pretty sure there are a lot of fruits and berries that had quite a lot carbs in their ancestral form and did not change much to this day, like dates, plums (e.g. acai plum), figs, etc. Somebody correct me if I am wrong
Correct. There is a reason that the picture has selected those examples - they are among the most extreme transformations compared to the wild ancestral forms.
That poster will never post comparisons of wild animals to their domesticated counterparts.
There are some that are fairly similar yes, but ancient forms were smaller with lower yields. For example figs are ancient and one of the highest calorie fruits but only have 20-30 calories per fig. An ancient human would have to eat 100-150 figs per day. Roughly one every 5 minutes while awake.
On the flip side if they hunted one mammoth it would feed more than 1000 people. What's easier, gathering 150,000 figs every day, or hunting 1 mammoth?
>What's easier, gathering 150,000 figs every day, or hunting 1 mammoth?
It's easier not being a brainlet that can only think in polar opposites.
Hunter gatherer societies were doing everything at once. Some hunted game, some were fishing, some gathered fruits and vegetables, etc.
yeah, things like dates have been around since like forever
I've eaten little wild carrots like that and they were tasty as fuark.
Primitive humans are almost exclusively meat.
Google what ancient cultivars of fruits and veg looked like, you would literally have to eat 100 ancient potatoes per day to hit 3000cal. It would be absurd. Or hunt one deer and the tribe is fed for 3 days. Ancient humans were almost pure carnivores, the myth of hunter gatherers was dispelled a long time ago.
A handful of walnuts provides ~500kcal
A single mature walnut tree produces anywhere from 80-160kg of nuts every year.
That's over 100,000,000kcal from a single tree. Nuts don't need to be cooked or processed before eating, and when kept dry they will stay edible for years.
Archaeological evidence shows evidence of acorn consumption as old as 30,000 years, and there is no reason to think tlit was a new behaviour at that point in time.
Amylase is the enzyme that digests starch. Chimpanzees and other great apes have 2 copies. Most humans have 4-10 copies. Anatomically modern humans that lived 400,000 years ago already had these extra copies of the amylase gene.
Why did they evolve this trait of they weren't consuming a significant quantity of starchy plant foods along with their animal foods?
Yah, I think it is very reasonable to think that big part of calories came from starchy stuff then fruits/berries/nuts and then meat.
They did not. People who parrot this re easily duped. If you think carefully for a minute bout how the mechanics of this world work it falls apart
You forgot the part when these people put butter in their coffee and eat 70% of their diet as fat
most people just eat less carbs dude
Yeah thats not keto so
>an apple
>keto
Thats more than a days worth of carbs bro
>Actually it's ok to eat as much sugar you want as long as it is under or at your TDEE
t. CICO fags
Factual and heterosexual
>Actually it's ok to eat as many whole foods as you want as long as it is under or at your TDEE
ftfy
noone ever says that not even in the /fat/ thread we say that if your gonna eat shit in a moment of weakness, at least make sure you eat less shit and adjust your meals later
>adjust your meals later
sorry buddy that isn't how it works. If you eat a bunch of sugar on a regular basis, reducing the calories of your later meal isn't going to save you.
Yes. Don't ketolards claim the same about butter?
no. people generally spontaneously reduce caloric intake on high fat diets and can eat to satiety while losing weight. but its still possible to gain weight eating too much on fat/protein foods
>spontaneously reduce caloric intake on high fat diets
>eat to satiety while losing weight
Translation: the average amerimutt treats sweets like an actual meal and wonders why he can eat hundreds of grams of them at a time.
>nobody
>not a single soul
>you: HAAA AMERICANS
The main consumers of mental illness such as veganism or keto are amerimutts.
Even most of the schizos in this threads are mutts.
Your obsession is depressing
Are you an amerimutt?
Seizures.
>organic human bodies are the same as cars because they use synonymous terms such as “fuel” despite being completely different
Do actual keto haters exist besides vegans who don’t even hate it for its metabolic properties?
You know why cars are the way they are?
Because they have engines that don’t rely on organic hormones and weight variables
>thermodynamics exist that means organic systems and a machine are the same despite the numerous variables
If I only fill up my car with 1 gallon a day instead of a full tank my car will lose weight?
>If I only fill up my car with 1 gallon a day instead of a full tank my car will lose weight?
I don't understand where you're going with this analogy...
If you're equating fuel with calories and the fuel in the tank with fat reserves and your goal is to make the car as light as possible (having the tank near-empty without removing parts of the car since that's basically your LBM) then it does make sense to put less fuel in the tank per day than your daily fuel consumption (if you have 20 gals in your tank, used 6 and refueled with 3 then you will start the following day with 17 gals in the tank).
And please don't give me that "le hormones, le thyroid" spiel because that's a (you) problem if you have such a cursed body. If you're moving your body then you will use calories no matter where they are in your body or their form. Your body is not powered by the power of love and friendship like some sort of shounen animu.
>pic related
I’m not debunking CICO it is tried and true science as it gets but this extreme example is only as effective for morbidly obese, yes you will lots of weight but once you get to a healthy composition your hormonal balances will change as well as electrolyte requirements this is not just for people with endocrine dysfunction it goes for everybody, if you get even to a healthy bmi your body will suffer if you only apply a caloric deficit while not paying close attention to macro and micro needs, I don’t know if you think differently but that just needed to be said may it be common sense
That is understandable, it does make sense that the lower your BF% the harder it is to lose fat, your body will not choose to tap from a dwindling source of emergency fuel that has the potential to save your life in case of prolonged periods of absolutely zero caloric intake.
For me, I don't care what your diet is be it keto, paelo or vegan. But I really don't believe that certain diets that have an inherent magical property that allows you to eat +500 calories over your expenditure and you body will be like "gee thats a lovely selection of macros, better dump those extra 500 calories down the poop chute for I have no need for them and burn fat instead".
>fuel in the tank with fat reserves
I did not mean this I meant the opposite in that car engines do not have secondary energy sources like humans do, we have adipose storages that can be used if not given direct fuel for the day or a period of time while cars do not, this is the justification for the existence of hormones as the body is designed to prolong itself in the absence of food
A car has a set fuel requirement that will not change and must be met or it will not run, a human however has a changing set of requirements and factors that alter the baseline for homeostasis, hormones do not solely effect people with health problems they effect everybody
TIL the laws of thermodynamics did not exist until cars were invented
Friendly reminder that you are NOT ALLOWED to drink water is you're doing keto
this dude is a retard shill who is only interested in clicks. probably not even a doctor.
He's a chiropractor unironically. It's what most "Doctors" on youtube actually are.
Real doctors on YouTube would be shilling pills.
Ironically that's exactly what Paul Saladino does while claiming meat is all you need.
>trusting anyone with berg in their last name
NGMI
Hes literally right about this, retard. Look up WHO rehydration formula
Not exactly wrong, that's why an IV is saline and not just water
>not the BEST way"
>retard reads it as "DONT DRINK WATER AT ALL"
you gays are so dishonest you'd lie about anything.
I've been doing keto since January and I feel good so I'm just going to keep doing keto. I know, I know.. You're upset because you don't have enough discipline to cut out goyslop.. but I do and I'm just going to keep eating keto. Hahaha lmao.
>you don't have enough discipline to cut out goyslop
You are eating corn and ꜱoy fed beef pumped with hormones.
>I eat grass fe--
You don't
>. but I do and I'm just going to keep eating keto.
Not for long you aren't. Your kidneys and intestines are currently being irreversibly damaged.
Maybe yours are but I'm not bitch made so I'll be alright. gay.
You sound incredibly defensive.
You'll have to excuse my angry outbursts. It's from raised T levels while being on keto.
Being unable to control yourself is the lowest T thing ever
why do people get mad at keto? theres nothing wrong with cutting out some of the basically useless carbs. wow not eating 1400 calories a day of white rice is mocked
>why do people get mad at keto?
They constantly shit up this board with retarded facebook-mom tier dietary advice that does long-term harm to your body
> theres nothing wrong with cutting out some of the basically useless carbs
Carbohydrates are essential for brain function and muscle growth
> wow not eating 1400 calories a day of white rice is mocked
If you're replacing those rice calories with butter and meat in the name of health then you're a retard who deserves ridicule
>Carbohydrates are essential for brain function and muscle growth
Is that why Ric Draisin and Arnold ate primarily protein and shied away from bread and sugar?
This is hilarious because its so wrong
Nope.
>taking off one of my tires
so what is this supposed to be equivalent to? restricting a single macronutrient? the implication that it is correct and true that human being require all three macronutrients to survive. well that's fucking stupid.
>so I can increase the longevity of my car's engine
implying that removing a tire (an essential component of your vehicle) is equivalent to burning only ketones. also very fucking stupid. the better analogy here is
>I'm using X fuel because I'm already hauling around a fuckton of it.
>why should I go to the gas station when I could instead use all the fuel I'm already hauling around?
>It's my fucking fuel, might as well use it. I might consider going to a gas station at some point, one said fuel reserves start dwindling, but for now I don't have to worry about that.
>It's more efficient because I can keep moving without worrying about a fuel stop.
>Also I'm not going to say that gas station fuel is tainted or whatever, but I seem to get better fuel mileage on the fuel I'm currently using. Don't have to change my filter as often, either.
I mean I know you're shitposting but could you maybe be less retarded?
>the implication that it is correct and true that human being require all three macronutrients to survive.
It is true. If you don't get enough dietary glucose, your body spends valuable energy converting glucogenic amino acids into glucose instead.
He clearly means exogenous macronutrients, you pedantic fuck
>spends valuable energy
doesn't your body "spend valuable energy" creating vitamins, amino acids, and peptides from precursors that you could otherwise consume directly?
Yes! It does! Thank you for clarifying that a diverse diet composed of many different kinds of plant and animal food is optimal for human health.
no need to get too excited veganboi i'm already omnivore
>advocating a diverse diet of plant and animal food
>vegan
Hmmm
hmmmmmm
really, really made me think
Imagine needing to take a b12 supplement because your diet is so retarded it wouldn't keep you alive without modern technology.
Imagine conflating carbohydrate consumption with veganism. Omnivores mog keto fats and vegans. Every champion athlete, every world-recording sportsman, every great outdoorsman, have all been omnivores.
Keto diet is omnivorous you fucking tard.
>Every champion athlete, every world-recording sportsman, every great outdoorsman
I'm an omnivore myself but what you're saying is not really true. People have achieved similar performance on both a carnivore diet and vegan diet.
For example Dave Mcleod could be described as the greatest living all-round climber (if by all-round you include sport, trad, ice, free solo, boulder).
Here's him performing the highest-graded free solo ever performed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvJOCJh1vpY
And here's him ranting like an autist about his positive experiences with the carnivore diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey93GV-oKQY
Conversly, Alex Megos is a very successful sport/boulder climber. He was the first person in the world to onsite a 9a route. He has climbed two 9b+ routes (for context there are less than 20 people in history who have climbed a 9b+ route). He also came 9th at the last olympics. He did all of this on a vegan diet.
>two literally WHO climbers
Lmao
Not my fault you don't follow the sport.
I'm sure you can find similar examples of high performing vegan or keto/carnivore athletes in many other sports.
both of those people have acheived more than you will in your entire life
What does using Zoomer Judeo Blackfied slang do to prove your point? They reached the pinnacle of physical human capabilities within their discipline. There is knowledge to be gained from looking at it. Your remedial gay logic would have you worshipping Billy Herrington as a world class athlete.
>People have achieved similar performance on both a carnivore diet and vegan diet
After a lifetime of being omnivores and reaping the benefits of being omnivorous.
>Dave McLeod
He's 44 years old.
>him performing
That was 3 years ago, he was 3-4 years on keto at that point. Again, a lifetime as an omnivore led to him being able to do this.
>Alex Megos
29 years old, went vegan in 2021.
Also all top climbers like Ondra, Megos and others are on roids.
What the fuck is your argument here?
>He's 44 years old.
And still performing at an elite level and continuing to make strength gains (after 7 years of on/off carnivore dieting). How many 44 year olds can say the same? If you skim the video I linked he even compares strength gains on his carnivore diet vs off it (although I suspect for him there is a bit of a placebo/confirmation bias, given how the diet helped him in other ways).
>Also all top climbers like Ondra, Megos and others are on roids.
Lol. Lmao even.
>NOOOOO, CLIMBERS CAN'T BE ON GEAR
lol, so your opinion is trash after all
Actually the greatest distance runner of all time Paavo Nurmi was mostly vegan vegetarian. 9 olympic golds and 3 silvers.
Fake news. He was vegetarian from age 15-21 but not when he was setting records.
>valuable energy
energy isn't that valuable when you're covered in 200+ pounds of it
Funny, all the fat fucks seem to be the ones promoting keto
yeah
normal sized people don't need to lose weight
But all these normal sized people are eating loads of carbs, why aren't they getting fat?
they didn't eat as much as the guys who got fat, who were also eating carbs when they got fat in the first place
So if fat people and regular sized people both eat carbs, but it was the amount of food that made the former group fat, is it fair to say that how much you eat is at least as important as what you eat?
Is there some way of measuring the energy value of different food stuffs? Some way to compare the available energy in different foods...
We could derive some kind of principle.. Energy In vs Energy Out.. Hmmm....
>is it fair to say that how much you eat is at least as important as what you eat
yeah
nothing I said was against CICO, just a statement that "burning valuable energy" is that CO part
Fat vegans (or any other plant-based fad diet enjoyers) are unable to offer cutting advice, only bulking.
That is a product of psychology - the people who are just starting x are more likely to talk about x. The people just start diet are more likely to be fat. Therefore the people talking about keto are most likely to be fat. It is not related to whether keto is good or bad. Unfortunately, takes a slightly higher than room temperature IQ to figure these things out.
for those of us who struggle with sugar cravings, keto gives us an option so we can live for a few weeks and not feel the highs and lows of glycogen levels. it's nice, after a week of being on keto i don't crave sweets or any unhealthy.
Vegans hate keto because their entire "salads are healthy" platform relies on the assumption that humans have to eat plants in order to live optimally, while the natural progression of a ketogenic diet might lead someone to experiment with cutting out all carbs and finding they actually feel better than with carbs. It's evidence-based philosophy that the religious diet preachers hate.
It costs you nothing to stop eating carbs
>finding they actually feel better than with carbs
Yet nobody, absolutely nobody, sticks with keto long-term. The only people famous for claiming to do so are people selling that diet.
There are plenty of people throughout history who have been on ketogenic diets. The longevity of the ketogenic diet hasn't been disproven and there are strong evidences for people living longer and outcompeting the dumber and slower carb eaters.
Non argument, but then again, that's all IST ever throws my way. I'm waiting for the day someone can convince me otherwise, but it's all terrible research or anecdotal
>plenty of people
Such as...?
Everyone who has ever been born, including you, but that's a given.
Anyone who has ever fasted enters a ketogenic state to sustain themselves. Ketone bodies are created from stored fat to fuel the cells in your body that can use it.
Being afraid of ketosis is very childish, since it's the primary metabolic state.
Just stop eating plants, okay?
>Everyone who has ever been born
I'm asking about lifelong keto.
Who is this "plenty of people"?
>plenty of people throughout history who have been on ketogenic diets
Who? Also, how long and why didn't they stick to it and was it verified and why is it that after 50 years of nonstop pushing of that bullshit counting from Atkins with millions keto books sold and millions of youtube views and 3 million subs on r/keto long-term population studies on effect of keto are impossible to do BECAUSE NOBOBY STICKS TO IT with quit percentage at 2 year mark on Virta Health own studies being 70% WITH ACTIVE COACHING AND PROVIDED MEALS.
Atkins diet fails because it includes carbohydrates. This should be apparent if you read the thread. Atkins is not inherently ketogenic and fails for those who wander into insulin spikes.
There is no long-term data on ketogenic diets in the modern sense, simply because insulin was only discovered in America less than 80 years ago. Ketogenic diets have existed prior with persons who eat only meat. Obviously.
Without ketosis, humanity in the ice age would've not fared so well. Can't quite pick apples from nothing.
Humans did NOT live ATOP the CONTINENTAL GLACIER you fucking RETARD
>humans can't exist in cold because... because I said so!
Eskimo denialism. Plant-basedboys are so pathetic.
Okay you're an actual retard, let's make this simple: tell me what did mammoths and other animals eat atop 2km high continental ice shelf?
Think your statement through for a bit more, you might understand why you sound brain damaged.
Your brain is astonishingly defective. Let me walk you through this really simple
>you claim humans totally lived without any carbohydrates atop continental ice shelf eating only meat which comes from animals
>however animals also have to eat something
>but nothing grows atop 2km of ice
>animals can't live there
What meat did the humans eat there then?
>not real keto
You people are exactly like communists, first cheering in full psychosis how it or latest rebranding of it is the best thing ever that totally works, then it doesn't work as always, and you start saying every time it wasn't real keto
go to bed grandma
Why would anyone eat a high carb diet? They must have put absolutely no thought into the topic themselves and merely trust the government.
I mean, have you ever wondered why we need to brush our teeth? There is literally only one substance that causes tooth decay - carbohydrate rich foods. There is also only one macronutrient that the body doesn't need - carbohydrates. There is also only one macronutrient that causes blood sugar spikes and insulin resistance - carbohydrates.
It is pretty fucking obvious, not necessarily that you should do keto, but you should avoid high carb diets like the fucking plague. You should try to limit high carb foods as much as you fucking can. Holy fuck you would have to be stupid to think anything else.
As far I know, predators also get shitty teeth later in life.
>Why would anyone eat a high carb diet? They must have put absolutely no thought into the topic themselves and merely trust the government.
The government advises a mixed macro diet
keto is good if you are sedentary
the people who try to pretend its IST are stupid though
>eat enough protein to maximize muscle growth
>eat enough fat for hormonal production while favoring SFAs and MUFAs and avoiding PUFAs
>fill in the rest of my caloric budget with carbs
No more schizo nonsense, this is the truth.
>activates the randle cycle like a boss and glycates his tissues
Hello, me from 10 years ago. Don't do it
>the body's normal function is somehow bad
Sure, deplete your glycogen stores while you're at it too. I eat over 100g carbs with my breakfast and I have a full six pack with some minor oblique definition. You're just as delusional as the vegantards
The randle cycle isn't something that "activates" because it's never switched off.
Your body is constantly in a state of using fatty acids, ketones and glucose for energy. It's in a constant state of dynamic flux. You don't switch from 100% carb burning to 100% fat burning.
Stop getting your microbiology from chiropractors.
Yes, that's what I said. If you were familiar with the randle cycle you'd know that long chain fatty acids and glucose shut out glucose absorption, leading to glycation when there is an over abundance of glucose in the blood. This happens readily and easily when you consume carbohydrates. What you've said is meaningless unnecessary static to me, as the existence of the randle cycle shows preferential treatment towards fatty acids against glucose absorption into the cell.
to glycation when there is an over abundance of glucose in the blood.
>my muscles seeing all this free glucose that they can eat
Your muscles are hardly given a choice.
>hey thanks for all the glucose big guy, when's the next workout? our glycogen stores are full, let's get to it
>glucose shut out glucose absorption
Well our cells can't hold an infinite amount of glucose anon
I know that. That's why the steady stream of glucose your body produces in lieu of exogenous carbohydrates is balanced out so as to not glycate your tissues. Throwing more glucose into the mix just unbalances this act for no real reason.
Steady blood glucose is a good thing
It's quite simple. You consume exogenous glucose and your body reduces glucagon and reduces gluconeogenesis.
And then my body releases insulin which shuttles all of that glucose to my hungry muscles. Yum yum, thank you based body
get a play-pen, you two
And then your eventual hyperinsulinemia causes insulin resistance on top of glycation. This is why we check our HbA1c
I'm athletic and metabolically healthy so I have good insulin sensitivity. Sedentary people shouldn't give diet advice to people that actually use their bodies.
Love me carbs, love me sprinting, love me cycling, love me weightlifting. Simple as.
That's not how insulin works, buddy. Your blood tests won't reveal the truth unless your doctor orders a C-peptide test, which he won't, since you're not complaining of any symptoms. You will pay the price in your later years, as insulin resistance is a slow killer.
I'm not complaining of any symptoms because I'm not prediabetic. The majority of people AREN'T diabetic despite consuming carbohydrate. The vast majority of T2D are overweight and sedentary.
The number of lean, athletic people with T2D is so low as to be virtually nonexistent.
No, this is a misattribution thanks to the HbA1c tests commonly used to diagnose diabetes after hyperglycemia is discovered. You can detect the presence of insulin-resistance (prediabetes) a decade sooner using a C-peptide test. Measure hyperinsulinemia, not hyperglycemia. Only when there's a critical point will there be hyperglycemia, although without a significant dietary change, it's practically certain.
Lol whatever dude, keep trying to diagnose me based on literally zero information all you want, it doesn't change reality - lean, athletic people develop T2D so rarely that it is practically a non event. In the few cases that it does happen there is generally a family history of it, indicating some genetic predisposition.
It's not tested for, simply because of the assumption that athletes are healthy. Tracking athletes and their later life health tells the full story, one you'll have to live through, I'm afraid.
>j-just you wait, only two more weeks and the carbs will kill you this time FOR SURE
The advice to get your c-peptides tested is there for you to take. I think it's a good thing that there are people leading an active lifestyle with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. The separation of the myth of active lifestyle allowing for the safe consumption of a poisonous diet from the minds of the masses is a good thing.
>limp wristed sedentary bitch cope
Only 5% of sumo wrestlers have diabetes.
Over 10% of the US has diabetes.
Sumo wrestlers are fat as fuck and eat boatloads of carbs.
A sedentary lifestyle will drag you down no matter the diet, we are designed to move.
There isn't an exercise in the world that will get rid of your insulin, anon. You fundamentally don't understand your disease, yet.
in reality even with zerocarb you don't even have low glucose, hba1c or insulin compared to people in great metabolic health, so acting smug about it makes you look even dumber
>get rid of your insulin
Your body constantly produces insulin, retard.
You fundamentally don't understand what you're talking about.
Hyperinsulinemia, which is what you're seeking, implies that you have more insulin than a healthy individual. You're not going to beat me with words, so just keep seething.
>Hyperinsulinemia
Exercise has been proven to reduce and prevent it.
>You're not going to beat me with words
???
Reddit's the other way, kid.
No exercise in the world gets rid of insulin, which your sick body overproduces in response to carbohydrates being crammed into your belly to fuel your activities with short bursts of dirty energy. Insulin resistance comes next, as your body can't use the insulin it has effectively thanks to glucose being blocked out. I've already explained this, so you're just trying too hard and coming back to earlier points. Eat meat.
>gets rid of insulin
You won't get rid of insulin in any way.
>overproduces
Oh no, when you eat a bunch of carbs, your body temporarily produces more insulin to be able to absorb carbs effectively, this is absolute insanity, you will die!
lmao
>Insulin resistance comes next
Because...?
>glucose being blocked out
???
>body can't use the insulin it has effectively thanks to glucose being blocked out
Actually insulin is blocked out from cells preventing its normal operation (enabling glucose to enter cell) and the one and only thing doing that blocking is intramyocellural lipids (fat inside cells) which is why people doing keto start reporting abnormally high blood sugar levels and which is also why weight-loss reverses T2 diabetes.
Cool head-canon. However that's extremely retarded when you think about it for a minute.
Like, everything you assumed was false and illogical. Insulin can be blocked without resistance, otherwise cells would be overwhelmed with glucose and die. This is not a defect. Jesus Christ, I'm talking to robots, I have to be.
>source: my ass
You don't understand the difference between normal receptor regulation ("blocking") and abnormal diseased blocking (excess fat in place where it should not be). Because you're a fucking retard, just like every single keto fanatic I've ever talked to.
No, seriously, think about it. How would that even work? That would kill everyone who stored fat. Why would we store fat if it were lethal? Please, think hard on this.
Jesus you're a fucking idiot holy shit. We store fat in ADIPOSE TISSUE but when it is inside MUSCLE CELLS it's in the WRONG PLACE
>consumes fat and carbs
>insulin gets released to feed cells
>fat enters cell and locks carbohydrate from entering the cell
>insulin released from consuming carbohydrate fails to work and the body produces more insulin
>this preferential treatment towards fat is seen as the reason for insulin resistance rather than the needless consumption of carbohydrate when the body already has fat
Okay. You're feral. I've already gone through this. What point is there in consuming exogenous carbohydrates if they're going to release insulin? It's not fat that causes insulin to spike. Get over it.
post body
Fat enter cells without insulin. Insulin has nothing to do with it. Goddamnit thats the entire point of keto diet, you should fucking know at least that much?! And that has the side effect of impaired glucose tolerance and insulin response, aka diabetes.
Meanwhile in reality, literally any exercise had benefits on your insulin sensitivity and allows muscle utilisation of glucose regardless of insulin state. Exercise is consistently and universally recommended as the primary mitigation strategy for T2D.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10683091/
>Up to two hours after exercise, glucose uptake is in part elevated due to insulin independent mechanisms, probably involving a contraction-induced increase in the amount of GLUT4 associated with the plasma membrane and T-tubules.
>However, a single bout of exercise can increase insulin sensitivity for at least 16 h post exercise in healthy as well as NIDDM subjects
>It is concluded that physical training can be considered to play an important, if not essential role in the treatment and prevention of insulin insensitivity.
post body
Not him, but I'm 29 and I eat a shitload of carbs, always been leading an active lifestyle, played a bunch of sports, lift weights and literally never had problems with insulin or blood sugar levels.
A sedentary lifestyle is literally your biggest enemy.
These seem to be exceptions rather than rules. The majority of people are fat, and get diabetic as they become older.
Even the majority of fat old people don't become diabetic.
Reducing gluconeogenesis won't remove the hyperglycemia. Gluconeogenesis isn't the issue here.
>just thinking about carbs too hard causes you to get kicked out of ketosis
>obviously nature intended man to stay in ketosis 24/7
makes sense
>microbiology
??
it's only a fucking problem if you eat a dessert after a really fatty meal
>be typical ketolard
>lose 10lbs of water weight in a week from no more glycogen storage
>forever proclaim the magic of the keto diet constantly to the point of annoyance and still be fat 10 years later anyway despite le low insulin
So Dana White just lost water weight huh? hahaha. You dumb head. I don't do keto, just low carb, and don't need to lose any weight, but it is quite obvious that low carb diets have worked for people more than just water weight.
This... but unironically
Makes me feel good
I get more foggy when not running off ketones and crash. I also perform well in the gym even with low carb, my lifts stay above 90% of my typical carbed out lifts, and Im doing olympic lifts just fine off of ketones even if not optimal. I just like the mental edge. I still eat rather lean (140g protein, medium fat, high fiber) and keep a moderate deficit.
a reminder that jimmy moore nuked his metabolism for good after going keto for more than a decade yet shills will tell you that keto is a lifestyle
>keto was this man's lifestyle
>yet shills will tell you that keto is a lifestyle
what did she mean by this
>the failure of a single person is representative of the failure that the entirety of humanity will endure if they choose a similar path
if that's your logic there are plenty of people out there who went vegan and went back once they realized that it wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
ah but i don't advocate for veganism my fat friend, in fact i loath it so much, perhaps even more than i hate keto
Carbs are so bad for you that a diet entirely of rice, fruit, sugar, fruit juice can completely reverse and CURE type 2 diabetes.
Inb4 a keto lard tries to claim that this is evidence that carbs are bad for you because these poor people wasted away and atrophied their bodies on the rice diet.
Notice the lack of fats. This is unsustainable for a lifestyle, but works because it doesn't cockblock the sugar as hard as mixing fats and carbs tends to.
Where's the source that this meme diet works?
Google kempner rice diet
I know this is a bot thread on a bot site but I would just like to say that grains are shit and carbs in general are useless and only good for staying ravenously hungry and gaining weight. Thanks.
>carbs in general are useless and only good for staying ravenously hungry and gaining weight.
I love it when fatties start projecting
Nah, just stating the obvious.
Funny then how I was swimming yesterday as usual (1,5km constant speed nonstop, 200m rapid max force intervals), came back ravenously hungry as usual, and blunted that hunger with some bread, low-fat spread and thin turkey deli and rice and tofu, as usual. Maybe it was all about that 20g of turkey slices for taste hmm.
>low-fat spread
Yikes
>excercise
>I'm redlining my car for half an hour 6 days a week
>why? that's insane
>nah that'll make it more powerful if I do it for years
Rigorous exercise decreases test and wears out your body long term, so it actually does fit the analogy.
>excercise bad
Learn to read moron. Going ham during training every time drops your test and fucks your shit up.
>excercise must mean overtraining
sub 90iq detected
You need to insert shit I didn't say, because my actual point is correct and you know it.
I already told you to learn how to read, you chimp.
>redlining car
>rigorous exercise
Think for a bit and come back to me, kid.
you pretend rigorous excercise is the same as severe overtraining, so you have an excuse for your fat ass never leaving the couch.
>you pretend rigorous exercise is the same as severe overtraining
No.
>never leaving the couch
I'm bigger and lift more than you though.
post body. make claim prove claim.
post body ketotard
>not going for monke diet
>fruits for carbs and fiber
>flesh of lesser beings for protein and fat
Simple as
I remember a time when this site had more than demoralization and social engineering threads. What a time it was.
what the fuck is up with these meme diets? Every five years or so some new fad diet pops up, gets shilled to death, and then fades into obscurity after nobody loses weight on it. Just eat less you fat fucks
NOOOOO, CICO LITERALLY DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE... BECAUSE I SAID SO
MOM WHERE THE FUCK IS MY BACON
>ketolards coping throughout whole thread
>nobody posted body
Sasuga, ketoschizo-chan.
you're not posting body either though
people will do anything to get fit except work out
Keto made it easier for me to do IF and eventually multiple day fasting. Some people are simply addicts. Sugar is a useful tool. So are amphetamines. Overuse is a fine line and varies between individuals.
Keto works really well for people that want to target FAT only and keep muscle. Its literally been working for years. It's what every single competition body builder does.
here is the problem tho. People are weak and some cant do it so they try to dispute it. Just like a cold plunge. You can hate on it all you want but it works when you cycle it.
Never has a food choice recommendation caused so much gay lisping seethe to establishmentarianists. For that reason alone I started doing it, I keep doing it because I was pleasantly surprised with the results.
Keto is a multibllion dollar diet industry. Stop deluding yourself youre some edgy contrarian fighting the system.
Well yeah, it's the multibillion dollar industry of meat, eggs, and green vegetables. Don't pretend like you need to be a retard and eat food with "keto" on the label.
Diet industry as in selling a diet and related products, not food production. It's a fucking huge business.
www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ketogenic-diet-market
>USD 9.57 billion
>Keto is a multibllion dollar diet industry.
Somebody tell him about the wheat and seed oil industries.
I don’t intentionally do Keto but I just realized that in the past week the only carbs I have had are 5 apples and 2 potatoes. Baked chicken thighs are just too OP for a cut.
Keto is inherently biologically flawed for fat loss morons. You have literally but your body into overtime mode by tricking it into thinking that it's in a survival mode where it needs to burn what ever auxiliary energy source it can to survive. However, in order to keep this going you need to constantly be eating fat and protein. Using it for weight loss doesn't make sense because your body is really fighting to keep the fat on while still trying to use as little as possible to survive off of. You are pretty much driving on a spare tire and slowly removing each lug nut until the whole wheel comes off.
idk my fat dad is doing keto again and basically starving himself and is compeltely in denial thinking he's doing anything significant, like a week into the diet
I know he will fail it once again, and this is like the 4th time he will be on this shitty diet
I knew that he would stay fat forever when he told me point black once that nearing the end of the keto diet he was on, he said he started dreaming nightly about food and drooling about it
like come on man
Have him switch to low carb high protein and start IF
You can’t expect somebody to get their diet in control on the first time it took me probably 10 times trying to diet before getting it right and learning consistency
Low carb diets gets normies who only half care to the right sort of results without them having to learn anything, and it appeals because it let's them have shit that other diets restrict.
Smart people who do it gradually just learn nutrition and end up with something more sustainable and less dogmatic.
So in that sense it's just another filter.
As a based Omnivore on a 75%+ plant based diet, with animal products in the rest (including meat), I hope that you understand that Ketotards and Vegans are both retarded.
>As a based Omnivore on a 75%+ plant based diet
So the standard american diet?
Whole foods only, sorry I forgot that part.
Keto is good if you have a lot of fat to burn. It's not magic. It just keeps you from having insulin spikes so you don't want to snack. You naturally eat at a calorie deficit and you loose weight.
I don't know what is hard about that for some people to understand. You don't get cravings. You don't snack. You eat a normal meal of broccoli and grilled chicken and the weight just comes off.
Keto bad
I'm going to repeat, keto works because you naturally don't want to snack and you naturally eat at below your cal needs.
Why do we have to keep talking about this?
>keto works because you naturally don't want to snack and you naturally eat at below your cal needs
We hear of people "falling off the keto wagon" all the time going on uncontrolled binges.
>eat animal products and green vegetables in the form of whole foods
>YOU'RE GOING TO LITERALLY DIE IF YOU DO THAT
The carbohydrate and processed food shills are nuts.
I don't know why we have to keep talking about this. Everyone's healthy meals look the same. Baked or grilled chicken with veggies. Nuts. Eggs. Cheese.
If you're not on a cut, eat more fruit, sweet veggies. Sometimes eat pastas and rice. Avoid sugar and soda.
It's literally the same shit. Most cut diets look like what keto guys eat. No one on fit is easy butter wrapped bacon.
Plant based diets are the healthiest period. Look at traditional jap diet, nothing but rice and vegetables with a little bit of fish here and there, and they have the most centenarians. Same with every single place where people live the longest and healthiest.
Yes, keto has it's place if you want to lose weight or have untreatable seizures, or to mimic fasting to induce autophagy, but for a maintaining kind of everyday diet, plant based is the way to go.
Why is that so hard to grasp and understand for so many people? g
Thanks to plants and agriculture humans ascended from only being hunter gatherers, making way for modern civilization, enlightenment, science, medicine you name it.
this is more from the lack of chewing due to soft food
Nice picture of more robust skulls from a time where you needed to be more robust.
Plant based doesn't mean vegan retard..it means the majority of food should come from whole plant based sources
>Plant based doesn't mean vegan retard..it means the majority of food should come from whole plant based sources
I prefer half and half, especially because I'm very big on eggs and dairy, but if that works for you then fine
how are eggs not plant based it's not meat
What
re-read my question again then, eggs are not meat, they're as close to a plant as you can get without being a plant
????
if it looks like a seed and it cracks like a seed it's a seed is what I'm saying I hope I was clear and I wish you a good night I have to attend to some personal stuff now think about it!
It's an egg not a seed but okay bro
thank you have a good one
>Plant based doesn't mean vegan retard..it means the majority of food should come from whole plant based sources
Sounds retarded, gay, and inconsistent with the diet human beings were designed for (60% animal derive + 40% everything else).
>Plant based diets are the healthiest period.
Stopped reading there
Vegantards, carnitards, and ketotards all get the rope
Omnivorechads rule this earth
I’ve long given up arguing with keto cultists. A huge waste of time, they are fundamentally misinformed about so many things.
What are you even supposed to do anyway? At this point it feels like there's a coordinated effort to mess with people or something, because whenever you BTFO the vegans or whatever, ketofags/carnifags enter the thread and start fighting you as well instead of fighting the vegans. You'd think that the different camps of diet cultists would fight each other but no they're always arguing with the normal people in the threads for some reason. It just gets annoying when you spend half an hour grabbing all the relevant data to BTFO some stupid vegan, then a ketofag enters the thread and now you're supposed to spend another half hour going over studies to BTFO the ketofag as well? It's just a waste of time
Anon, I don't know if you're still there, but this is a demoralization website now. It's not a place for discussion and I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say that. There is no active board on this site where you can have a real discussion anymore without this kind of shit happening. I spent so much time watching the decline before I had enough and the longer you stay away from the site the more obvious it is (and the worse it gets). I don't even know why I'm back here now but I wish you well and hope you can find a better place to speak to people, anon.
>I don't know if you're still there, but this is a demoralization website now. It's not a place for discussion and I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say that.
I understand that perfectly, but I'm trying to brute-force good threads into existence regardless. For reference, the whitepill and redpill threads that are up rn were both posted by me, and I think the discussion in both of those is infinitely better than 99% of the threads on this board (and IST in general). I should probably stop posting in threads like these tbh, you're right in that nothing of value gets posted here. I mean just look at this thread, most of it is just strawmanning and shitflinging dumbasses fighting eachother instead of having an actual discussion.
>I don't even know why I'm back here now but I wish you well and hope you can find a better place to speak to people, anon.
Thanks bro, I try my best. In spite of all the issues I mentioned about this place though, every other place on the internet is even more insufferable to me so my only choice is to figure out something here. It is possible to have good conversations and discussions here, you just have to work really hard for it and I'm willing to do that.
Best of luck, anon. I know it sounds stupid, but I unironically saw my life changed in multiple ways for the better because of this website and it has pained me to see it rapidly deteriorate since 2016 and the rise of the culture war and other mind-warping nonsense. So I'd love to see it kept alive in some form or fashion, too, and I admire you for keeping up the good fight. You're a real one.
>I know it sounds stupid, but I unironically saw my life changed in multiple ways for the better because of this website
Same, diving into the sea of piss and shit to grab the diamonds is worth it IMO. Despite all the BS I've gained so much from this place it's unreal
>So I'd love to see it kept alive in some form or fashion, too
That's the idea, even if you can't fix the website or the board as a whole, you can carve out your own little area that still has high quality discussion. It makes the most sense since there's no way to easily fix all of IST or something along those lines, it's just not tenable
>and I admire you for keeping up the good fight. You're a real one.
Thanks brother
most meme diets work in the short term by limiting goyslop, but they all have problems that adherents ignore because they get emotionally attached to their consumer choices from decades of brainwashing. I do mostly wfpb but thats only bc of my genetics.
>wfpb but thats only bc of my genetics
do you have the genetics of a chimp lmao
A realistic version of that comic would be asking why a person is using ethanol free fuel and then the other person saying that the car runs more efficiently on ethanol free fuel.
>someone actually spent time “drawing” this shit
Either to lose body fat while not being hungry. Or to deal with blood sugar issues.
my buddy had to get impacted feces surgically removed after going full ketard