/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.11268543]

Would it be wise to combine Intermittent Fasting with a Ketogenic Diet?

[Anonymous No.11268545]

It's already basically keto

[Anonymous No.11268546]

>>11268543
yes

[Anonymous No.11268561]

>Keto
>Fasting
>Mercola

[Anonymous No.11268760]

Keto is dying because there is a better, more ethical, healthier way of life. RIP keto.

[Anonymous No.11269550]

That's what I'm doing, without really wanting to. I just have no idea what to eat.

[Anonymous No.11269839]

>>11268543
Do whatever fad diet bullshit you want. In the long run it'll still just be calorie amount that determines what happens to you.

[Anonymous No.11269853]

>>11269839
>eat poison
>die
Good advice

[Anonymous No.11269860]

>>11269853
Which specific fad diet is recommending that you eat poison?

[Anonymous No.11269871]

>>11269860
That one diet recommended by school teachers in the west.

[Anonymous No.11269885]

>>11269871
>>11269860
Fucking burned.

[Anonymous No.11269897]

>>11269871
>>11269885
Nope.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Still just calories that matter, carbohydrates aren't poison.

[Anonymous No.11269905]

>>11269871
>>11269885
>>11269897
Reminder the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
>Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese: more than 85% of people with type 2 diabetes in southeast Scotland in 2005 had a body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared) of over 25. Recent evidence indicates that high waist circumference may be an even better indicator than body mass index (BMI) of increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Reminder you lose weight even on a vending machine snack diet if you take care of calorie restriction.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

[Anonymous No.11269941]

>>11269905
Thats one of the most pointless experiments I've heard of.
>guy eats less calories than he spends and loses weight, WHAT COULD THIS MEAN?
It could be interesting to see what happens to body with pure carb diet that has <5% fat&protein but at the same time he's eating veggies and protein shakes so theres absolutely nothing to gain from it.

[Anonymous No.11269951]

>>11269941
It's not pointless, it refutes the people who claim the kind of food you eat is what matters for weight loss when the medical consensus since forever has been that it's the calories that matter, not the source of calories.

[Anonymous No.11269973]

>>11268543
You could. I find that it's easier to stick to a diet if I eat more vegetables, but there are a bunch of cultures that live off nothing besides meat. Just take a multivitamin every now and then.

[Anonymous No.11269974]

>>11269951
>it refutes the people who claim the kind of food you eat is what matters for weight loss
Theres 2 ways to talk about that
1 is well obviously it's a math thing, 1 calorie is a calorie
2nd is to do with hormones, hunger, blood sugar, inflammation, ketosis and related body processes.

Now when you do an experiment where you 100% ignore the 2nd part it sounds awfully like being a paid shill. "this is true, also ignore that 2nd part that is also true and impacts how fat people are going to get".
The 1st part is not argued by anyone, the 2nd part is.

[Anonymous No.11270031]

>>11269871
>how to make everyone dumb and fat in 4 step
God, never again

[Anonymous No.11270033]

>>11269974
The second part you're outlining there doesn't make you lose more or less weight though. At most what it would do is influence appetite, in which case it's still just calories that are mattering because the subject would be eating more calories.
>an experiment where you 100% ignore the 2nd part
If you check weight loss following different sorts of calorie equivalent foods and you get the same results, then that would mean the second part wasn't a factor.

[Anonymous No.11270039]

>>11269871
So what foods actually has lots of fats/oils?

[Anonymous No.11270060]

>>11269974
>>11270033
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

[Anonymous No.11270071]

>>11268543
It wouldn't be unwise

[Anonymous No.11270074]

>>11270060
Try READING. Nobody is arguing against that.

[Anonymous No.11270087]

>>11270074
>Try READING.
You wrote this:
>>11269974
>2nd is to do with hormones, hunger, blood sugar, inflammation, ketosis and related body processes.
>"this is true, also ignore that 2nd part that is also true and impacts how fat people are going to get"
But that second part doesn't actually change how fat people are going to get. At most you can say the "hunger" one changes how fat people get, but that's not even really true because it would only make people gain more weight if they act on it and eat more calories. None of those things make you gain more or less weight as a separate concern from calories.

[Anonymous No.11270096]

>>11270033
>The second part you're outlining there doesn't make you lose more or less weight though.
>Being in ketosis 24/7, a state in which the body literally burns bodyfat through ketones vs. havin a moderate carb diet in which the body will have no need to stay in ketosis and you'll enter ketosis at night at most due to eating lowcal and fasting while you sleep doesn't make you lose more or less weight

I tried to imagine what's like being this retarded, but I failed.

[Anonymous No.11270110]

>>11270060
Simple carbs metabolize quickly, they raise your blood sugar levels and insulin levels rise. Insulin causes insulin resistance which leads to diabetes. They don't do a good job at sating hunger, carbs don't inhibit your hunger hormones for very long. Also, sugar is fucking addictive which makes people eat more of it. Ever seen a child thats been given too much sugar? It's a drug.
Complex carbs are fine. Wheat still causes inflammation because your body can't process it and treats it as a foreign object, temporary inflammation is a way to protect the body, elongated inflammation due to repeatedly eating wheat in your diet causes health issues.

Fat and protein keep your hunger bangs at bay much more effectively, so you dont feel the need to eat immediately. (they're not addictive like sugar)

Ketosis and intermittent fasting have various health benefits and have a good track record in making people lose weight. The studies tend to ignore <5% carb diets for some reason.

[Anonymous No.11270111]

>>11270060
>lowest carb diet was 35%
That's still too much to get into proper ketosis senpai. If the benefits of doing the diet is to super restrict that particular group, and the experiment doesn't do that, then its more of a commentary on the slightly modified standard american diet than comparing keto to standard american diet, etc.

[Anonymous No.11270122]

>>11270096
Show me the study where you lose more weight on a keto diet even though you're eating the same amount of calories as someone else. And if that's not what you're arguing then you're not disagreeing with me.

[Anonymous No.11270137]

>>11270122
I'm sure there are studies out there, I just actually tried it on myself and:
>1500kcal balanced macro diet
>lose weight slowly and stall
>1500kcal keto diet
>losing weight so fast it was scary

I'm sure you have many arguments to counter this such as "you didn't count right", "but muh studies". Save yourself the trouble pal, some people don't need an international peer reviewed paper to tell them water is wet.

[Anonymous No.11270141]

>>11270110
>Insulin causes insulin resistance which leads to diabetes.
I already addressed that here:
>>11269905
>the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
If you never become overweight you're probably not getting diabetes. Which again points to calories being the real thing that matters for almost every dietary concern people have. Now if you already are diabetic then I agree simple carbohydrates are something you should avoid. But what I disagree with is the idea normal weight people eating simple carbohydrates are putting themselves at risk for diabetes.

[Anonymous No.11270146]

>>11270137
Our bodies preferring to use carbs has prob something to do with it.

>>11270141
What if all people who regularly elevate their blood sugar levels are all fat and those who don't aren't?

[Anonymous No.11270161]

>>11270087
>Hunger doesn't change how fat people are going to get

People don't exist in a vacuum. They aren't thermodynamic equations. I know this is hard for someone with autism to understand

[Anonymous No.11270177]

>>11270122
Not him, but here you go

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-1-13

[Anonymous No.11270183]

>>11270141
Lol @ you getting cause and effect backwards.

[Anonymous No.11270191]

>>11270137
>I'm sure you have many arguments to counter this such as "you didn't count right"
I have no idea what exactly you did or didn't do and I don't really care because it's a one person anecdote.
>some people don't need an international peer reviewed paper to tell them water is wet.
Things people believe are obviously true turn out to be wrong all the time. If common sense and intuition were really that reliable nobody would do formal studies in the first place.
>>11270146
>What if all people who regularly elevate their blood sugar levels are all fat and those who don't aren't?
Totally possible, which is why we have studies similar to this one to rule that possibility out:
>>11270060
>Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
>>11270161
>Hunger doesn't change how fat people are going to get
That's a pretty dishonest rephrasing. What I actually said is hunger isn't going to change how fat people are going to get *as a separate factor from calories*. Meaning if you eat more calories and blame it on hunger, then you're not really gaining more weight as a separate factor from calories, you're gaining the same amount of weight in response to more calories consumed.

[Anonymous No.11270198]

>>11270137
>1500kcal balanced macro diet
>1500kcal keto diet
Prove it. I think you're lying and were overeating like crazy on your balanced diet and were understating on your keto diet. Isn't that what you ketofags are always claiming? That CICO diets make you hungry and keto diets make you not want to eat?

[Anonymous No.11270205]

>>11270177
Yeah, pretty much what everyone that ever did keto could testify to.
It just werks.

>high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate die
Happened to me too.

[Anonymous No.11270244]

>>11270177
This study didn't compare two diets with the same amount of calories:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
It didn't even try to control the calorie content, the first group doesn't mention calories at all and the second group only says a deficit of 500 to 1000 calories, meaning apparently they were left to their own devices to eat within a vague range of food quantity.
And the second one acknowledges it's making a controversial claim contradicted by many other studies and potentially explained in terms of people not really adhering to the diet or counting calories properly:
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-1-13
>Given such evidence, it is difficult to understand the alternate position claiming a calorie must be a calorie in order to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics [29]. Although the origin of the difference in weight loss between VLCK and LF diets remains controversial, such a response clearly does not violate any thermodynamic laws [7]. Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet [30] and the specific conditions that are required to elicit a metabolic advantage remain unknown.
>In this case, it is often claimed that inaccurate reporting of dietary intake or errors in nutrient databases (e.g., overestimation of calories from certain cuts of meats) account for the greater weight reducing effects of VLCK diets.

[Anonymous No.11270253]

>>11270198
He already said he's not going to prove it because he doesn't believe in studies or evidence.

[Anonymous No.11270268]

>>11270191
>I have no idea what exactly you did or didn't do and I don't really care because it's a one person anecdote.
>>11270198
>Prove it. I think you're lying and were overeating like crazy on your balanced diet and were understating on your keto diet. Isn't that what you ketofags are always claiming? That CICO diets make you hungry and keto diets make you not want to eat?

Rhetoric was invented just so you could convince or persuade someone to support your idea when their say mattered.
Guess, what, your say doesn't. I'm feeling generous so I'll explain it with concise logic.

>The only means to get rid of bodyfat is through ketosis.
>The body will only enter ketosis when it has already consumed the carbs it had.
>The more time you spend in ketosis, the more fat you will burn in a given period of time.
>In a keto diet you will be in ketosis for ~24h a day
>In a regular caloric deficit diet you will be in ketosis for about ~8h a day being optimistic
If everything said is true (prove me wrong)
Then you will lose bodyfat faster in a keto diet due to being in ketosis all day vs. just a few hours a day.

Try refuting any of this.

[Anonymous No.11270273]

>>11270244
>A novel and potentially clinically significant finding was a preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a VLCK diet, which was approximately three-fold greater during the VLCK than the LF diet. Upper body fat carries a greater health risk than fat stored in other regions of the body and thus an effective weight loss approach should consider the regional distribution of fat loss.

It's just going all in that ketosis is best thing ever and lf is useless garbage. Its not really about calorie vs calorie, it's just that 1 diet is vastly better.

[Anonymous No.11270289]

>>11268543
IM GOING TO SHOOT MY DICK AND BALLS OFF MOVE THESE CRAP THREADS TO /fit/

[Anonymous No.11270291]

>eating only once a day is considered fasting
What?
Shouldn't the minimum be at least one full day?
If anyone told me they had fasted, and I asked them for how long, and they replied with anything under three days I would laugh at them.

[Anonymous No.11270302]

>>11270268
Why are you including me in your mentally ill post here? I already told you I don't know what you did or didn't do and I don't really care because it's a one person anecdote.

[Anonymous No.11270306]

>>11268543
yeah if you're trying to turn into a woman

[Anonymous No.11270312]

>>11270291
It's about the way your body reacts to longer periods of no food intake, not about semantics.
Normal people have a 9h fasting period when they sleep. If you just increase it to 12h it'll have an effect. You can also do 16h or 46h etc.

[Anonymous No.11270318]

>>11270268
>be me, chad began
>eat healthy 2500kcal tofu, beans, and kale
>burn 2500kcal
>lose 0 lbs

>be you, ketofag
>eat 2500 kcal heart attack inducing fat
>burn 2500 kcal fat cuz ketosis memeshit
>lose 0 lbs
>haha I'm losing weight suck it cicofags
Holy fuck you're retarded - your meme keto diet is doing nothing useful but burning all that fat you're eating, and giving you kidney failure, liver failure, and clogged arteries in the process. My healthy and ethically superior vegan diet is also successfully burning the sustainable food I eat, and saving the planet at the same time.

[Anonymous No.11270325]

>>11270312
So why not just fast more often but for shorter periods, like say 3 hrs.
IFfags btfo

[Anonymous No.11270328]

>>11270325
People do fast 3h, it's just that those people are fat and die young.

[Anonymous No.11270332]

>>11270291
It's not, they're just pretending what theyre doing is real fasting to make them think they're doing something difficult. Real fasting starts at 30 days, anything shorter than that and you're just larping.

[Anonymous No.11270354]

>>11270312
it's only effective because their blood sugar is basically stable, and they running off their glycogen supplies as soon as they're stored. I'd IF over keto but a true fast would be the most effective. But time-frame for both keto and a water fast are very limited or at least should be unless you're trying to kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.11270365]

>>11270302
>ignore everything
>le anecdote lel xD
>>11270318
picture

It's alright, you can't deny what I wrote because every premise is accepted by mainstream science, you lost.

[Anonymous No.11270371]

>>11270354
Plenty of people keep doing keto for years.

[Anonymous No.11270391]

>>11270365
Yes, ignoring is the appropriate response to a random one-off anecdote about a self-conducted diet comparison where you were your own heavily biased test subject. Not sure why that's surprising to you.

[Anonymous No.11270398]

>>11270391
So you can't refute anything I said, yet you keep posting pretending you are onto something. Sad.

Here,
>The only means to get rid of bodyfat is through ketosis.
>The body will only enter ketosis when it has already consumed the carbs it had.
>The more time you spend in ketosis, the more fat you will burn in a given period of time.
>In a keto diet you will be in ketosis for ~24h a day
>In a regular caloric deficit diet you will be in ketosis for about ~8h a day being optimistic
If everything said is true (prove me wrong)
Then you will lose bodyfat faster in a keto diet due to being in ketosis all day vs. just a few hours a day.

Try refuting any of this.

Not an anecdote, but a fine example of logic.

[Anonymous No.11270414]

>>11270354
>very limited
Define "very". People have water fasted for months, even over a year. There's an obvious limit - once you run out of fat it's time to stop - but what your rationale for restricting fasting to a shorter period, other than pretending to others you're not weak willed?

[Anonymous No.11270455]

>>11270398
>The only means to get rid of bodyfat is through ketosis.
It doesnt fucking matter because your meme keto diet makes you eat gobs of fat. Congratulations you're burning off the food you eat. Meanwhile anybody eating a normal healthy diet burns off their carb intake during the day, and goes into ketosis at night - without your meme diet - and also burns off any fat that was produced. Unless you're gorging yourself on chips and burgers and fries and soda. during the day, which if I'm understanding you correctly is apparently the natural state of you retarded ketofags. Congratulations on discovering the only diet more healthy than your 10,000 cal/day diabetes feast. The rest of us are not impressed.

[Anonymous No.11270465]

>>11270455
>eat fat, lose weight
And this is a problem in your eyes?

[Anonymous No.11270473]

>>11270465
Generally living a shorter life is a problem for anyone who is not schizophrenic.
Reality is a bitter pill to swallow for ketofats though. Enjoy the fatty liver.

[Anonymous No.11270475]

>>11270398
>pretending you are onto something
Are you confusing me with the other anon? You know there are two of us, right? I'm not the one who tried to claim you were lying and asked you for proof. I just pointed out I can't possibly know what you did or didn't do and it doesn't really matter anyway because even if you were operating under controlled conditions and not doing this test on yourself it would still only be a single data point and not actual evidence for anything.

[Anonymous No.11270487]

>>11270455
>eating fat cancels out burning fat and it's the same to the body as eating carbs (which would put you OUT of ketosis).
>agreeing to what I said AND being smug and retarded about it.

Thanks for playing

>>11270475
>blabla muh controlled condishuns

Still not addressing this?
Here is your evidence,
>The only means to get rid of bodyfat is through ketosis.
>The body will only enter ketosis when it has already consumed the carbs it had.
>The more time you spend in ketosis, the more fat you will burn in a given period of time.
>In a keto diet you will be in ketosis for ~24h a day
>In a regular caloric deficit diet you will be in ketosis for about ~8h a day being optimistic
If everything said is true (prove me wrong)
Then you will lose bodyfat faster in a keto diet due to being in ketosis all day vs. just a few hours a day.

Try refuting any of this.

[Anonymous No.11270489]

>>11270473
Did you know that alcoholism isn't part of the keto diet?

[Anonymous No.11270499]

>>11270487
>Try refuting any of this.
Here you go:
>Then you will lose bodyfat faster in a keto diet due to being in ketosis all day vs. just a few hours a day.
That doesn't jive with this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

[Anonymous No.11270504]

>>11270473
>If you don't want to get to be a 60 year old with alzheimer's who doesn't even remember who he is, you're schizophrenic

Yikes. I'd rather live a testosteroneus meat chad for a few years than a soyboy vegan malnourished cuck until I'm 80

[Anonymous No.11270508]

>>11270504
>testeroneus meat chad

oof

cringe

[Anonymous No.11270517]

>>11270499
That is the conclusion I've come to due to everything else being true and accepted by the scientific community. If you want to prove my conclusion wrong you need to explain why would the opposite happen. Saying "this aint happenin in shit study" doesn't explain shit and is a vague attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy.

Example:
>dude you need to cum inside to get her pregnant
>naw, johnny said he came on her belly and he had twins

[Anonymous No.11270527]

>>11270465
>eat fat, burn the fat you ate
Yeah you're a real genius
>>11270487
>eating fat then burning it is superior to not eating fat in the first place
>pretending ketosis is special
>pretending the only way to get into ketosis is with a meme diet
Yeah thanks for playing. Everybody that doesnt gorge themselves goes into ketosis and burns fat every day,
Fortunately, ketofaggotry is a self limiting system, it's been proven that your meme diet kills you, while a healthy vegan diet makes you live a long and ethically superior life. Die young, ketofaggots, and die often.

[Anonymous No.11270535]

>>11270527
>it's been proven that your meme diet kills you
Are you mentally ill or what.

[Anonymous No.11270537]

>>11270527
>he actually unironically believes eating fat makes you fat
lol, the 80s called, yadda yadda
>it's been proven that your meme diet kills you
citation required
>while a healthy vegan diet makes you live a long and ethically superior life.
>vegan
Oh, nevermind, don't reply to me again, you won, you're right.

[Anonymous No.11270669]

>>11270517
It's not an appeal to authority, it's an "appeal" to evidence. Unless you're trying to claim they faked the study.
>If you want to prove my conclusion wrong you need to explain why would the opposite happen.
Because thermodynamics predict the same amount of weight loss.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
>Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.
>The carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). Therefore, isocaloric exchange of dietary carbohydrate for fat is predicted to result in increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. In contrast, a more conventional view that "a calorie is a calorie" predicts that isocaloric variations in dietary carbohydrate and fat will have no physiologically important effects on EE or body fat.
>CONCLUSION: The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7096307_Ketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets_have_no_metabolic_advantage_over_nonketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets
>Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets
>KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800484
>Effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate exchange on human energy metabolism.
>Diet composition had no effect on 24-h energy expenditure in the women with unrestrained eating.

[Anonymous No.11271597]

>>11270535
it's a vegan, of course it's mentally ill

[Anonymous No.11271759]

>>11268543
>Mercola

no

[Anonymous No.11271914]

>>11268760
Bad bait

[Anonymous No.11272595]

>>11268760