It's a pizza with no carbohydrates because i used four ounces of pork rinds to make the crust.
and of course i make sure to fulfill protein requirements above all else with protein shakes and such as required.
gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
Are you for real? Either way lol.
Lessons posted:Are you for real? Either way lol.
idgi whats your problem with that post?
ps those blank posts were saying people lost weight faster like that than the usual caloric deficit + exercise cut (friends lost in a month what i lost in a year)
Prospero posted:Lessons posted:Are you for real? Either way lol.
idgi whats your problem with that post?
ps those blank posts were saying people lost weight faster like that than the usual caloric deficit + exercise cut (friends lost in a month what i lost in a year)
He's following the insane goon diet where you eat nothing except bacon and mayonnaise in an effort to force your body into thinking that it's starving.
gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
Lessons posted:He's following the insane goon diet where you eat nothing except bacon and mayonnaise in an effort to force your body into thinking that it's starving.
no more explanation needed, you said goon ur right im convinced
Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ronnski posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ketogenic diets have been around since the early 20th century as a way to help control epilepsy and various metabolic disorders. ketoacidosis only occurs if you aren't balancing the protein intake with higher fat intake as well, or if you have a metabolic issue that prevents you from metabolizing the fatty acids. even in that case, your body is metabolizing fat stores as well.
elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ketogenic diets have been around since the early 20th century as a way to help control epilepsy and various metabolic disorders. ketoacidosis only occurs if you aren't balancing the protein intake with higher fat intake as well, or if you have a metabolic issue that prevents you from metabolizing the fatty acids. even in that case, your body is metabolizing fat stores as well.
Eating a diet that is 90% fat as a way to minmax your way to weight loss is disgusting, insane and unhealthy.
elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ketogenic diets have been around since the early 20th century as a way to help control epilepsy and various metabolic disorders. ketoacidosis only occurs if you aren't balancing the protein intake with higher fat intake as well, or if you have a metabolic issue that prevents you from metabolizing the fatty acids. even in that case, your body is metabolizing fat stores as well.
Eating a diet that is 90% fat as a way to minmax your way to weight loss is disgusting, insane and unhealthy.
eating some pork-rind pizza is disgusting and insane for purely aesthetic reasons, but ketogenic diets aren't 90% fat.
elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ketogenic diets have been around since the early 20th century as a way to help control epilepsy and various metabolic disorders. ketoacidosis only occurs if you aren't balancing the protein intake with higher fat intake as well, or if you have a metabolic issue that prevents you from metabolizing the fatty acids. even in that case, your body is metabolizing fat stores as well.
im pretty sure I remember the central nervous system requiring Glucose to function at all, so even if you supplement your diet with more fat you can easily run into the problem of producing a lot of keton bodies because your body is trying to reverse engineer food for your cns
even if you could sensibly handle a diet such as this you shouldnt recommend it to people with no training in nutritional science as they are going to ruin their liver by shoveling fast food down their throat more than usual
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
eh, paleo diet shit makes shit up, but afaik from the archaeologists and anthropologists i've talked to, i don't think it's particularly controversial that humans did not have the carb intake as post-neolithic evolution. whether they were wolfing down mongongo nuts or, as modern paleo diets claim, game, is as you said completely unknown.
if youre not a bodybuilder, extreme sports person man guy, or whatever, but just some average dude who wants to lose weight, go with the recommendations of the DGE (the german society for nutrition, as thats the one im familiar with) which was, iirc, 60% carbs 25% fat and 15% protein, make sure to consume mostly complex carbs, eat your fruits and veggies like mom told you to and do some sport. its the stuff passed aorund as conventional wisdom but well, its right
elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ketogenic diets have been around since the early 20th century as a way to help control epilepsy and various metabolic disorders. ketoacidosis only occurs if you aren't balancing the protein intake with higher fat intake as well, or if you have a metabolic issue that prevents you from metabolizing the fatty acids. even in that case, your body is metabolizing fat stores as well.
Eating a diet that is 90% fat as a way to minmax your way to weight loss is disgusting, insane and unhealthy.
eating some pork-rind pizza is disgusting and insane for purely aesthetic reasons, but ketogenic diets aren't 90% fat.
Sometimes they are though, they're basically always over 50% fat and >75% fat is really common. Thats fucking gross dude lol.
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:elemennop posted:Ronnski posted:gwarp posted:i think people were talking about weight loss here, but i don't really know because half of the posts have been edited to be blank for some reason. anyway, you should do keto, it's great. i lost a lot of weight before by having a simple calorie deficit regardless of what i took in. now to lose the final bit of weight i've started a ketogenic diet for the heck of it and i eat like 10x more and lose weight much faster than i had before. it's insane and unbelievable, do it.
youre losing weight because youre losing muscle mass while simultaneously becoming fatter. theres a reason every sensible source for nutritional information promotes that the vast majority of energy supply should be from carbs. youre risking damaging your liver or potentially much much worse.
a pure keto diet has its drawbacks and isn't something you should necessarily do, but this is completely wrong
In what way? Its pretty common for those stupid trendy diets to result in weight loss that coincides with an increase in body fat percentage...
Ketogenic diets have been around since the early 20th century as a way to help control epilepsy and various metabolic disorders. ketoacidosis only occurs if you aren't balancing the protein intake with higher fat intake as well, or if you have a metabolic issue that prevents you from metabolizing the fatty acids. even in that case, your body is metabolizing fat stores as well.
Eating a diet that is 90% fat as a way to minmax your way to weight loss is disgusting, insane and unhealthy.
eating some pork-rind pizza is disgusting and insane for purely aesthetic reasons, but ketogenic diets aren't 90% fat.
Sometimes they are though, they're basically always over 50% fat and >75% fat is really common. Thats fucking gross dude lol.
man, eating a pork rind pizza is disgusting even if it was 10% of your caloric intake, i don't think that should be your takeaway
elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
eh, paleo diet shit makes shit up, but afaik from the archaeologists and anthropologists i've talked to, i don't think it's particularly controversial that humans did not have the carb intake as post-neolithic evolution. whether they were wolfing down mongongo nuts or, as modern paleo diets claim, game, is as you said completely unknown.
I mean it simply stands to reason that paleolithic humans didn't eat as much carbohydrates as neolithic or modern humans but any statement like "paleolithic humans followed a low-carb diet" can't be supported because we just don't have any hard evidence. They didn't have agriculture but there were also a lot of countervailing factors like pastoral practices, the much larger variety of wild grains that existed back then, etc., and you can't really extrapolate back based on current band-level societies because these aren't actually analogues to paleolithic humans unchanged for millennia, they're societies deeply shaped and often outright created by agricultural societies.
https://www.google.com/#q=pork+rind+crust+pizza
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
eh, paleo diet shit makes shit up, but afaik from the archaeologists and anthropologists i've talked to, i don't think it's particularly controversial that humans did not have the carb intake as post-neolithic evolution. whether they were wolfing down mongongo nuts or, as modern paleo diets claim, game, is as you said completely unknown.
I mean it simply stands to reason that paleolithic humans didn't eat as much carbohydrates as neolithic or modern humans but any statement like "paleolithic humans followed a low-carb diet" can't be supported because we just don't have any hard evidence. They didn't have agriculture but there were also a lot of countervailing factors like pastoral practices, the much larger variety of wild grains that existed back then, etc., and you can't really extrapolate back based on current band-level societies because these aren't actually analogues to paleolithic humans unchanged for millennia, they're societies deeply shaped and often outright created by agricultural societies.
I never said anything to the contrary, and I never extrapolated from modern band-level societies? All I said was that paleolithic diets had probably significantly lower amount of carbohydrates in their diet compared to neolithic diets, and that there are modern band-level societies with low carbohydrate consumption that survive just fine compared to agricultural society
elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
eh, paleo diet shit makes shit up, but afaik from the archaeologists and anthropologists i've talked to, i don't think it's particularly controversial that humans did not have the carb intake as post-neolithic evolution. whether they were wolfing down mongongo nuts or, as modern paleo diets claim, game, is as you said completely unknown.
I mean it simply stands to reason that paleolithic humans didn't eat as much carbohydrates as neolithic or modern humans but any statement like "paleolithic humans followed a low-carb diet" can't be supported because we just don't have any hard evidence. They didn't have agriculture but there were also a lot of countervailing factors like pastoral practices, the much larger variety of wild grains that existed back then, etc., and you can't really extrapolate back based on current band-level societies because these aren't actually analogues to paleolithic humans unchanged for millennia, they're societies deeply shaped and often outright created by agricultural societies.
I never said anything to the contrary, and I never extrapolated from modern band-level societies? All I said was that paleolithic diets had probably significantly lower amount of carbohydrates in their diet compared to neolithic diets, and that there are modern band-level societies with low carbohydrate consumption that survive just fine compared to agricultural society
"Significantly" is just a weasel word except when used in a precise statistical context
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
eh, paleo diet shit makes shit up, but afaik from the archaeologists and anthropologists i've talked to, i don't think it's particularly controversial that humans did not have the carb intake as post-neolithic evolution. whether they were wolfing down mongongo nuts or, as modern paleo diets claim, game, is as you said completely unknown.
I mean it simply stands to reason that paleolithic humans didn't eat as much carbohydrates as neolithic or modern humans but any statement like "paleolithic humans followed a low-carb diet" can't be supported because we just don't have any hard evidence. They didn't have agriculture but there were also a lot of countervailing factors like pastoral practices, the much larger variety of wild grains that existed back then, etc., and you can't really extrapolate back based on current band-level societies because these aren't actually analogues to paleolithic humans unchanged for millennia, they're societies deeply shaped and often outright created by agricultural societies.
I never said anything to the contrary, and I never extrapolated from modern band-level societies? All I said was that paleolithic diets had probably significantly lower amount of carbohydrates in their diet compared to neolithic diets, and that there are modern band-level societies with low carbohydrate consumption that survive just fine compared to agricultural society
"Significantly" is just a weasel word except when used in a precise statistical context
come on man, give me a break, i'm not writing an article for the AJA, nor am I shilling a product. it's not unreasonable to estimate it would be "considerably" lower.
Lessons posted:all of the low carb people you're ever actually like to run into are the pork rind pizza psychos
my Kimiko-san would never eat goongrease so we only eat cheetos dipped in mt dew + nutella milkshakes
seriously have you never seen one of those crossfit cult freaks on paleo?
elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:Lessons posted:elemennop posted:also low-carb diets (though not ketogonic) have been staples of many nomadic or hunting/gathering cultures throughout history. if you go to pre-agriculture, it's doubtful most human diets were primarily carbohydrate based. whether that was actually healthier or not is another question, but longevity was at least approximate.
This is just bullshit that paleolithic diet blogs make up and there's zero archaeological evidence for it. We know close to nothing about prehistoric nutrition.
eh, paleo diet shit makes shit up, but afaik from the archaeologists and anthropologists i've talked to, i don't think it's particularly controversial that humans did not have the carb intake as post-neolithic evolution. whether they were wolfing down mongongo nuts or, as modern paleo diets claim, game, is as you said completely unknown.
I mean it simply stands to reason that paleolithic humans didn't eat as much carbohydrates as neolithic or modern humans but any statement like "paleolithic humans followed a low-carb diet" can't be supported because we just don't have any hard evidence. They didn't have agriculture but there were also a lot of countervailing factors like pastoral practices, the much larger variety of wild grains that existed back then, etc., and you can't really extrapolate back based on current band-level societies because these aren't actually analogues to paleolithic humans unchanged for millennia, they're societies deeply shaped and often outright created by agricultural societies.
I never said anything to the contrary, and I never extrapolated from modern band-level societies? All I said was that paleolithic diets had probably significantly lower amount of carbohydrates in their diet compared to neolithic diets, and that there are modern band-level societies with low carbohydrate consumption that survive just fine compared to agricultural society
"Significantly" is just a weasel word except when used in a precise statistical context
come on man, give me a break, i'm not writing an article for the AJA, nor am I shilling a product. it's not unreasonable to estimate it would be "considerably" lower.
It's not necessarily unreasonable but I also don't think it's particularly informative anthropologically let alone nutritionally. Anyway the reason I started arguing about this at all is because you were saying something much more specific, that paleolithic diets "weren't primarily carbohydrate-based" which is a really dubious statement and seems to imply that pre-agricultural humans all ate like traditional Inuit or something.
There are a lot of misconceptions about fat and people just don't understand how the body works in the first place. im not saying everyone has to eliminate carbs completely from their diet, but eating sugary drinks, sugary snacks, cakes, bowls of pasta with no nutrients, etc is likely why diabetes is so widespread everywhere. eating good fats will neither kill you not make you fat, they are just a differently metabolized sources of energy.
also I'm fine lol, I'm kinda "a biologist" and knew about the brain utilizing ketone bodies to sustain itself before I ever heard of people inducing ketosis, I of course also did my research and asked others what they thought of my findings. Everyone around me is a health professional, so I don't think I'm gonna die any time soon. If I was just some random guy with no knowledge of molecular biology finding a "fad" diet, I would be skeptical too, but I have had no I'll effects doing this and have only had massive gains.
Edit: oh when I said I eat "10x more than I did before," I actually do maintain the same caloric deficit I always had, but I just feel extremely more sated because of the increased fat intake.
Edited by Peelzebub ()
