SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

Look, it can work for some people. But for all around health, especially if you are active. EAT FREAKIN CABRS. You are going to feel better and perform better.

And why is it that anyone I have ever met on keto do not have impressive physiques?

---

Your statement is incorrect. For all around health - AVOID CARBS. To feel better and perform better.....also AVOID CARBS.

Note: Often KETO and CARNIVORE people are lumped together in the "No Carb" group which is not inaccurate, but KETO is much more focused on FAT, whereas Carnivore is much more focused on protein (and if animal fat comes with it then so be it).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on what is an "impressive" physique.....because the way things are going in America right now for middle-aged office workers which I'd assume most of us are it is certainly rare to see even minimum standards of healthy as those standards become more and more lax err "body positive"

---

Retort:




He tried for YEARS to perform while on the carnivore diet, but ultimately left it behind because it wasn't helping with performance. The video explains exactly why.

jtraggie99 said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

Look, it can work for some people. But for all around health, especially if you are active. EAT FREAKIN CABRS. You are going to feel better and perform better.

And why is it that anyone I have ever met on keto do not have impressive physiques?

---

Your statement is incorrect. For all around health - AVOID CARBS. To feel better and perform better.....also AVOID CARBS.

Note: Often KETO and CARNIVORE people are lumped together in the "No Carb" group which is not inaccurate, but KETO is much more focused on FAT, whereas Carnivore is much more focused on protein (and if animal fat comes with it then so be it).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on what is an "impressive" physique.....because the way things are going in America right now for middle-aged office workers which I'd assume most of us are it is certainly rare to see even minimum standards of healthy as those standards become more and more lax err "body positive"

---

https://texags.com/forums/48/topics/3394321/last
TxTrasplant is doing a great job in this thread (which you have posted on).

She is a far better (and far more patient) poster than I am.

And no. You are wrong. Flat out.

Impressive? I mean athlete not some tubby office worker who snagged on to some fad diet to lose a few pounds which can only be achieved by eating below maintenance calories. (Look, Im not saying that the tubby office worker losing a few pounds isn't a good thing...it is, but that is not truly the best way to go about things and absolutely not the way to go about it if you are active.)

---

If no carbs are the best for performance, and carbs are not only unnecessary but inherently bad for you, why do more college and professional athletes not avoid them completely?

---

Nutrition coaches are stuck in their ways because of how they were taught. Just like college strength and conditioning coaches still saying no knees past your toes.

The literature will eventually change.

bam02 said:

---

jtraggie99 said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

Look, it can work for some people. But for all around health, especially if you are active. EAT FREAKIN CABRS. You are going to feel better and perform better.

And why is it that anyone I have ever met on keto do not have impressive physiques?

---

Your statement is incorrect. For all around health - AVOID CARBS. To feel better and perform better.....also AVOID CARBS.

Note: Often KETO and CARNIVORE people are lumped together in the "No Carb" group which is not inaccurate, but KETO is much more focused on FAT, whereas Carnivore is much more focused on protein (and if animal fat comes with it then so be it).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on what is an "impressive" physique.....because the way things are going in America right now for middle-aged office workers which I'd assume most of us are it is certainly rare to see even minimum standards of healthy as those standards become more and more lax err "body positive"

---

https://texags.com/forums/48/topics/3394321/last
TxTrasplant is doing a great job in this thread (which you have posted on).

She is a far better (and far more patient) poster than I am.

And no. You are wrong. Flat out.

Impressive? I mean athlete not some tubby office worker who snagged on to some fad diet to lose a few pounds which can only be achieved by eating below maintenance calories. (Look, Im not saying that the tubby office worker losing a few pounds isn't a good thing...it is, but that is not truly the best way to go about things and absolutely not the way to go about it if you are active.)

---

If no carbs are the best for performance, and carbs are not only unnecessary but inherently bad for you, why do more college and professional athletes not avoid them completely?

---

Nutrition coaches are stuck in their ways because of how they were taught. Just like college strength and conditioning coaches still saying no knees past your toes.

The literature will eventually change.

---

Or, they have already tried it and regardless of what the "literature" says (which can be flawed in a zillion ways), and they have seen on the field results that flat out do not support adopting a keto diet for athletes. Maybe for tubby office workers for awhile to drop a few pounds.

Could be. Personally, I've done keto (fewer than 30 grams) and still had high performance in high intensity cardio and I also got the strongest and leanest I've ever been (and I was very fit when I began).

Admittedly I don't do it anymore because it's hard to do when your family isn't eating that way.

bam02 said:

---

Could be. Personally, I've done keto (fewer than 30 grams) and still had high performance in high intensity cardio and I also got the strongest and leanest I've ever been (and I was very fit when I began).

Admittedly I don't do it anymore because it's hard to do when your family isn't eating that way.

---

I have no idea what what your "high performance" and "strongest and leanest" could mean.

It could have just been because you had a neurological adaptation that made you "stronger" rather than actually built muscle...and that you you were eating below maintenance (with plenty of proteins) that helped you keep the muscle you had while losing some fat. (This is probably what happened....and no...running does not necessarily make you "fit."). There is always a novice effect in resistance training where even riding a bicycle can increase your bench press in small ways.

(I took a guess on the running or cycling...As I made that mistake for a long time...Running and good cardio is only a piece of being fit).

You would have had the same result if you ate 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight and you combination of fats, carbs, and proteins were under your maintenance.

At this point in life I had been lifting weights for almost 20 years and I was "built". Doing keto I got "shredded".

Stupid terms but that's what happened.

bam02 said:

---

At this point in life I had been lifting weights for almost 20 years and I was "built". Doing keto I got "shredded".

Stupid terms but that's what happened.

---

Fair enough! By getting stronger, what happened? Were you tracking your big compounds lifts during this time?

You got "shredded" by eating under maintenance and eating high enough protein and trained enough where your body held on to muscle (for the most part) and lost the fat. Had nothing to do with keto. If you had some solid muscle development already, then it was easier to be under maintenance because muscles take more calories to maintain than fat.

Sounds like you just pulled off a successful "cut" and didn't even know it!

Yes I was tracking (and always have and will) the main compound lifts (back squat, deadlifts, OHP, bench press, BOR).

I did this for a full year. The only reason I stopped was because my cardiologist (who doesn't actually know that much about nutrition) made me feel guilty about it. I started worrying that if I had a heart attack that it would be my own fault. That said my advanced lipid panels were better than ever while eating a high fat low carb keto diet.

bam02 said:

---

Yes I was tracking (and always have and will) the main compound lifts (back squat, deadlifts, OHP, bench press, BOR).

I did this for a full year. The only reason I stopped was because my cardiologist (who doesn't actually know that much about nutrition) made me feel guilty about it. I started worrying that if I had a heart attack that it would be my own fault. That said my advanced lipid panels were better than ever while eating a high fat low carb keto diet.

---

Wait, so your lifts went up during calorie restriction? (and how much?)

(I mean, there are always lots of variables when it comes to these things).

I wasn't in a deficit

bam02 said:

---

I wasn't in a deficit

---

If you were losing fat you were. (I mean....maaayyyybbbbeee a little there in the beginning).

Goes back to...if you said you were the strongest and leanest, I don't know what that means.

(No need to share if you don't want to, just trying to get a sense of what you were when you started, strength level, etc....and then what happened after).

Like I said I did this for the better part of a year and it was about 6-7 years ago. To your point, it is possible I am running two periods within that year together in my memory. Maybe within that year I had a stronger period followed by a leaner period. I was strict on keto but my calorie intake may have fluctuated over the course of months. And I wasn't measuring BF, just going off the mirror. I definitely got stronger without gaining much BF, if any, and looked much leaner.

Bottom line it worked for me and I was able to lift heavy and do HIIT "WOD"-type workouts.

jtraggie99 said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

Look, it can work for some people. But for all around health, especially if you are active. EAT FREAKIN CABRS. You are going to feel better and perform better.

And why is it that anyone I have ever met on keto do not have impressive physiques?

---

Your statement is incorrect. For all around health - AVOID CARBS. To feel better and perform better.....also AVOID CARBS.

Note: Often KETO and CARNIVORE people are lumped together in the "No Carb" group which is not inaccurate, but KETO is much more focused on FAT, whereas Carnivore is much more focused on protein (and if animal fat comes with it then so be it).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on what is an "impressive" physique.....because the way things are going in America right now for middle-aged office workers which I'd assume most of us are it is certainly rare to see even minimum standards of healthy as those standards become more and more lax err "body positive"

---

https://texags.com/forums/48/topics/3394321/last
TxTrasplant is doing a great job in this thread (which you have posted on).

She is a far better (and far more patient) poster than I am.

And no. You are wrong. Flat out.

Impressive? I mean athlete not some tubby office worker who snagged on to some fad diet to lose a few pounds which can only be achieved by eating below maintenance calories. (Look, Im not saying that the tubby office worker losing a few pounds isn't a good thing...it is, but that is not truly the best way to go about things and absolutely not the way to go about it if you are active.)

---

If no carbs are the best for performance, and carbs are not only unnecessary but inherently bad for you, why do more college and professional athletes not avoid them completely?

---

Most people who do keto do so to lose excess weight, which is stored as fat. Your body does have to work harder to convert protein and fat to energy. Just with any organism, straight glucose is the "easiest" form of energy for a cell to use because no conversion is needed. For everything else, the fuel has to be converted to glucose before it can be metabolized by the cell. Cells are lazy, so as long as a lot of glucose is present, cells will utilize that first. If that glucose provides enough energy then any excess calories consumed (regardless of whether or not those calories come from carbs, protein, or fat) will be stored as fat.

Most true athletes do not have any excess fat that they need to lose. Most true athletes also train so hard (hours every day) that they probably BURN in a day (excluding their BMR calories) what most of us cube-dwellers eat to maintain our weight. True athletes want to be sure they are consuming enough calories to fuel their activity and not lose any muscle or fat.

I've seen some women who eat 2200+ a day to maintain a very fit physique. I'd be a cow if I ate that, and I work out just about every day. But I'm not TRAINING. Big difference.

Eating 2000-3000 calories a day on the "carnivore" diet would probably be gross to most athletes, not to mention, it's totally unnecessary for them. They don't have any fat they want or need to lose, they burn all the calories they consume, and their bodies are perfectly capable of processing carbs. When you're eating that many calories, most people need variety in their diet. Also, some athletes need access to quick energy, especially if they are doing a lot of cardio for extended periods of time. Think tennis players, swimmers, and distance runners. Eating carbs gets the fuel to your cells a little faster. There is a reason you don't see triathletes chomping down on a rib-eye steak during that energy slump in the last 5 miles of the marathon.

The exception to this would be body builders who cut right before a competition. But that's because the goal at competition is to LOOK a certain way, not perform in a gym or on a field. A cut typically will be lower calories and VERY low carbs because the goal is to LOOK as lean as possible. Which means shedding water weight, and carbs do make us retain water.

Most women I've know who have shredded to compete will tell you that 1) it's not healthy, 2) it's not sustainable, and 3) it wrecked their bodies/health for at least a short period of time.

bam02 said:

---

Like I said I did this for the better part of a year and it was about 6-7 years ago. To your point, it is possible I am running two periods within that year together in my memory. Maybe within that year I had a stronger period followed by a leaner period. I was strict on keto but my calorie intake may have fluctuated over the course of months. And I wasn't measuring BF, just going off the mirror. I definitely got stronger without gaining much BF, if any, and looked much leaner.

Bottom line it worked for me and I was able to lift heavy and do HIIT "WOD"-type workouts.

---

I hear ya. Glad it was effective for you. Was just curious how it all went down and what your results were (which you probably did more "healthy" by just looking in the mirror rather than measuring stuff out, weighing, and all that).

Oh gawd, you're a crossfitter. That's a whole other thread.

TXTransplant said:

---

Most women I've know who have shredded to compete will tell you that 1) it's not healthy, 2) it's not sustainable, and 3) it wrecked their bodies/health for at least a short period of time.

---

Woof. I've witnessed the exact same thing. Every single one of them (men and women) will tell you they were absolutely miserable. Serves as a good example of this taken to its absolute extreme.

Ha ha no I am most definitely not. Hence my careful wording.

bam02 said:

---

Ha ha no I am most definitely not. Hence my careful wording.

---

nice save with that "-type"

Yeah, those folks are something else.

Quote:

---

Most people who do keto do so to lose excess weight, which is stored as fat. Your body does have to work harder to convert protein and fat to energy. Just with any organism, straight glucose is the "easiest" form of energy for a cell to use because no conversion is needed. For everything else, the fuel has to be converted to glucose before it can be metabolized by the cell. Cells are lazy, so as long as a lot of glucose is present, cells will utilize that first. If that glucose provides enough energy then any excess calories consumed (regardless of whether or not those calories come from carbs, protein, or fat) will be stored as fat.

Most true athletes do not have any excess fat that they need to lose. Most true athletes also train so hard (hours every day) that they probably BURN in a day (excluding their BMR calories) what most of us cube-dwellers eat to maintain our weight. True athletes want to be sure they are consuming enough calories to fuel their activity and not lose any muscle or fat.

---

This is true. However, I doubt most of the people on here are "athletes" by your definition working out for a sport in weight training and practice for multiple hours probably multiple times a day.

That being said, most people are office workers, and most people can't do much about that as it is presently systemically built into society. However, some of us want to eat a healthy nutritious fuel that makes us feel great, delivers excellent bloodwork results and kudos from doctors, and want to be able to be active with our kids, and eventually grandkids in the sports they play instead of burdened and overheated by simply carring the camp chair to the sideline.

I don't know how many calories I eat in a day. Some days its probably above maintenance, some days its probably below. But I don't want to have to think about it. I like to keep it simple. I eat whenever I want and I eat as much as I want. I used to count calories, and carbs and macros, and try and figure BMR and Calories in and Calories out and cheat day, and how many calories are eaten vs drank and have enough vegetables and mix in some fruits and what grains are better than others and it is a giant overwhelming mess of decisions and I think that is what confuses and frustrates people.

For the 99% of people on here (lets assume that no Aggie Student Athletes are on this forum) if you are tired of all the misinformation and thousands of decisions and want to keep it simple, eating a low to no carb protein based diet will help you sleep better, improve your blood work, and help you retain muscle better than anything else.

Carnivore isn't a "crash" or cutting "diet" it is a healthy sustainable nutrition plan of maintenance. Not a fad. Sustainable without the overthinking every bite or purchase.

And I perform pretty well for a mid-40s guy. Its not genetics, its the fuel. You are what you eat.

We are basically on the same page regarding your statements in that post above.

I agree most people here aren't athletes. My post was in response to the question asking why athletes don't typically follow keto/carnivore diets (and a follow up comment that I didn't quote saying they just haven't "figured it out yet").

The short answer is that athletes don't NEED to do keto/carnivore for all the reasons I listed above. Keto/carnivore is a diet/form of calorie restriction, which elite athletes don't need. I can pretty much guarantee though, that elite athletes ARE eating high protein, which most average Americans fail to do.

Also don't disagree with people needing to figure out what works for them. I get the not liking to count calories, but I would argue that anyone starting any sort of new "eating plan" (I don't like the word diet) should at least have a basic understanding of BMR and an estimate of what theirs is. Because you can overeat on any sort of diet, if you are not paying attention to your caloric needs.

Where you and I diverge is your insistence that carbs (in any form) are bad or unhealthy and a carnivore/keto diet is healthier/better for the body. Choosing one "diet" over another is simply a matter of finding something that you can stick to for the LONG TERM. No one wants to feel deprived or that they are having to forever give up foods that they truly enjoy, because they are almost guaranteed to fail if they do.

Layne Norton used an interesting term in his podcast with Huberman: "Energy Toxicity".

Too much energy, consumed as calories, is what's bad for your body/health. The source of those calories is irrelevant, if you are consuming too many for your body's needs.

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

Most people who do keto do so to lose excess weight, which is stored as fat. Your body does have to work harder to convert protein and fat to energy. Just with any organism, straight glucose is the "easiest" form of energy for a cell to use because no conversion is needed. For everything else, the fuel has to be converted to glucose before it can be metabolized by the cell. Cells are lazy, so as long as a lot of glucose is present, cells will utilize that first. If that glucose provides enough energy then any excess calories consumed (regardless of whether or not those calories come from carbs, protein, or fat) will be stored as fat.

Most true athletes do not have any excess fat that they need to lose. Most true athletes also train so hard (hours every day) that they probably BURN in a day (excluding their BMR calories) what most of us cube-dwellers eat to maintain our weight. True athletes want to be sure they are consuming enough calories to fuel their activity and not lose any muscle or fat.

---

I don't know how many calories I eat in a day. Some days its probably above maintenance, some days its probably below. But I don't want to have to think about it. I like to keep it simple. I eat whenever I want and I eat as much as I want. I used to count calories, and carbs and macros, and try and figure BMR and Calories in and Calories out and cheat day, and how many calories are eaten vs drank and have enough vegetables and mix in some fruits and what grains are better than others and it is a giant overwhelming mess of decisions and I think that is what confuses and frustrates people.

---

And here we come to it.

Its easier for you. But these principles you are ignoring now still apply. Its just that you aren't eating over your maintenance for the most part. That's all there is to it.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16685046/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

BECAUSE it is very hard to overeat protein. Sometimes I'm unable to finish the 2nd ribeye. I don't push myself to eat more, or restrict myself from eating less. That is what makes it easy. Satiety is key when considering a nutrition plan.

It is extremely easy to overeat when carbs are included in the equation. They drive hunger. Spike up, feel low, craving again, repeat on and on.

A couple of personal examples....from the land of "I used to...."

I can eat an entire box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch no problem, and 15-30 minutes later feel hungry again.

I can eat an entire carton of Blue Bell in one sitting no problem, at no point feeling "full" or satisfied, and this is followed by a headache and generally feeling terrible and yes, still hungry.

I could kill myself with chocolate covered nuts. Every bite is a wonderful sensation of chocolate sweet and salty and the happy receptors in my brain will keep receiving all the happy chemicals I can pump out. The tastebuds and pleasure centers never quit. I'm sure eventually my digestive system might just dissolve and I'd die from internal bleeding, or something, but at no point does the tastebuds or brain say stop.


That kind of thing is extremely hard to do consuming mostly protein (with some fat), because it is almost guaranteed your body will tell you when it is satiated.

If you really want to do the research thing we can......but I'm prepared......

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16685046/

Your premise here is that Ketogenic (in ketosis) diets don't differ in weight lost when compared with Non-ketogenic diets that are "low carb". And the good thing here is that this appears to almost be an RCT where food intake is strictly monitored and they also stated an activity level.....

However (Stephen A Smith voice)

1) the NLC diet has 40% carbs - that aint low carb, not even close.
2) We both agreed that people don't eat enough protein, and this is exemplified here: 30% fat and 40% carbs.....I'm not sure what that is, but it isn't low carb, and I'm not sure its a "diet" at all as it sounds pretty close to the standard american diet.
3) it says the people in the study were SEDINTARY. So you have sedentary people in ketosis that maybe lost some fat, and you have sedentary people who aren't in ketosis......the obvious omission is that BOTH lost muscle and so sure, weight loss didn't vary much in this comparison because the missing factor is body fat % measurement.
4) Other minor factors that maybe aren't minor....20 is an extremely small sample size. What about gender or age or previous other health status factors ?


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

Not exactly sure what this article is trying to demonstrate as it appears to be mostly about how long people can keep up with a diet and maybe the effects of the counseling sessions on said diet ?

1) 811 is a much better sample size, but this is not a controlled environment (RCT) with food inputs given and activity levels monitored....which means people fill out surveys and those types of "research" are inherently flawed because 1 - people are idiots and 2 - people lie.
2) The ratios given aren't even close to low carb, so its not really a keto or carnivore applicable study.
3) The average weight loss OVER 811 PEOPLE was 4 kilograms in TWO YEARS.....so.....it seems that whatever common (and what I mean is nothing eliminated) diet plan there are people are extremely capable of failure to make meaningful change.

Here is some research as well......

(Note I have no sponsorship/partnership/affiliation/income of any kind or anything to gain from posting Dr. Tro's research page)

https://doctortro.com/research/

Most of the "Research" is bullsheet. (Both for and against). But there is far more against it.

You have already admitted that this is just the diet that you were able to stick to (and it comes down to simply you are eating below maintenance (or at maintenance) you do understand that right? This is the law of thermodynamics).

I have no idea if you are an athlete (doesn't sound like you are). And this has helped you keep weight off. That's great...But its far from optimal advice. Its, in fact, terrible and should be ignored until there are few other alternatives.

Most people should ignore keto at first. Its a silly way to go about losing weight.

How would you measure "athlete" ?

I mean I'm mid 40s, so not capable of some of the stuff I could do in my 20s, but I do ok.

And while your opinion is that a carnivore nutrition plan is "silly", there are countless medical professionals and researchers who not only recommend this form of nutrition but have also researched and seen the results in their own lives.

SARATOGA said:

---

How would you measure "athlete" ?

I mean I'm mid 40s, so not capable of some of the stuff I could do in my 20s, but I do ok.

And while your opinion is that a carnivore nutrition plan is "silly", there are countless medical professionals and researchers who not only recommend this form of nutrition but have also researched and seen the results in their own lives.

---

I would define athlete as someone who exercises with moderate to high intensity 3x a week. Putting them on a strict carnivore diet is silly. Other than recovery times. Im stronger and faster in my 40s than I was in my 20s (and I was in decent shape then).

There also countless medical professionals and researchers who have don't recommend this and seen the faults of this in the own lives. You see what you want to see in the research man.

There is nothing wrong with being knowledgeable about carbs. Being mindful. They are easy to over eat. But, in the end, eating below maintenance, 1 gram of protein per lbs of body weight (if active, maybe a bit lower if not), filled in the rest with carbs and then some fats gives much more freedom in what you can eat. You wont be deficient in any other type of nutrients.

Bodies are all different, strangely enough. If it works for you. Great. Im not saying that no one should ever try it. What Im saying it should be lower on the list of things to try.

For most people, lifestyle changes where they are aware of macros, protiens and carbs, and then can manipulate from there is going to be more beneficial in the long run. And, for most, happier, because carbs are effing awesome.