Ketogenic Diet

Acg67

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

That's too simplistic and nothing more than internet broscience.

Surely you're being facetious.

Who, me or him? I don't believe it's a simple matter of calories in v. calories out, at least not in all cases. For most people yes, for a lot of people, no. That calories in v. calories out meme has been circulating on the internet since time immemorial.

Looks like you are not familiar with the energy balance equation nor the various factors that effect the energy out side of the equation

Thorbjornn

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

That's too simplistic and nothing more than internet broscience.

Surely you're being facetious.

Who, me or him? I don't believe it's a simple matter of calories in v. calories out, at least not in all cases. For most people yes, for a lot of people, no. That calories in v. calories out meme has been circulating on the internet since time immemorial.

Looks like you are not familiar with the energy balance equation nor the various factors that effect the energy out side of the equation

It looks like you're not familiar with metabolic disorders.

'Kthxbye.

FunkyTobias

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

That's too simplistic and nothing more than internet broscience.

Surely you're being facetious.

Who, me or him? I don't believe it's a simple matter of calories in v. calories out, at least not in all cases. For most people yes, for a lot of people, no. That calories in v. calories out meme has been circulating on the internet since time immemorial.

Looks like you are not familiar with the energy balance equation nor the various factors that effect the energy out side of the equation

It looks like you're not familiar with metabolic disorders.

'Kthxbye.

You realize that metabolic disorders effect the "energy out" side, right?

Thorbjornn

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

That's too simplistic and nothing more than internet broscience.

Surely you're being facetious.

Who, me or him? I don't believe it's a simple matter of calories in v. calories out, at least not in all cases. For most people yes, for a lot of people, no. That calories in v. calories out meme has been circulating on the internet since time immemorial.

Looks like you are not familiar with the energy balance equation nor the various factors that effect the energy out side of the equation

It looks like you're not familiar with metabolic disorders.

'Kthxbye.

You realize that metabolic disorders effect the "energy out" side, right?

Insulin resistance = fat storage = no loss of calories. Eat less <> storing less or using more. Then calories in v. calories out = epic fail.

FunkyTobias

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

That's too simplistic and nothing more than internet broscience.

Surely you're being facetious.

Who, me or him? I don't believe it's a simple matter of calories in v. calories out, at least not in all cases. For most people yes, for a lot of people, no. That calories in v. calories out meme has been circulating on the internet since time immemorial.

Looks like you are not familiar with the energy balance equation nor the various factors that effect the energy out side of the equation

It looks like you're not familiar with metabolic disorders.

'Kthxbye.

You realize that metabolic disorders effect the "energy out" side, right?

Insulin resistance = fat storage = no loss of calories. Eat less <> storing less or using more. Then calories in v. calories out = epic fail.

Then please explain why ketogenic diets do no better than other diets when calories and protein are matched.

Thorbjornn

Then please explain why ketogenic diets do no better than other diets when calories and protein are matched.

They do work better. Because for those of us who can't process carbs... uh, please go do some reading on why ketogenic diets work. Start with PubMed/NIH.

FunkyTobias

Then please explain why ketogenic diets do no better than other diets when calories and protein are matched.

They do work better. Because for those of us who can't process carbs... uh, please go do some reading on why ketogenic diets work. Start with PubMed/NIH.

OK

How about these:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;83(5):1055-61.
Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.
Johnston CS, Tjonn SL, Swan PD, White A, Hutchins H, Sears B.
Source

Department of Nutrition, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA. carol.johnston@asu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.
OBJECTIVE:

We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.
DESIGN:

Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.
RESULTS:

Mean (+/-SE) weight losses (6.3 +/- 0.6 and 7.2 +/- 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood beta-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum gamma-glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.
CONCLUSIONS:

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.

FunkyTobias

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jul;90(1):23-32. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27326. Epub 2009 May 13.
Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo.
Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Keogh JB, Clifton PM.
Source

Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization-Human Nutrition, Adelaide, SA, Australia. grant.brinkworth@csiro.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Long-term weight loss and cardiometabolic effects of a very-low-carbohydrate, high-saturated-fat diet (LC) and a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (LF) have not been evaluated under isocaloric conditions.
OBJECTIVE:

The objective was to compare an energy-controlled LC diet with an LF diet at 1 y.
DESIGN:

Men and women (n = 118) with abdominal obesity and at least one additional metabolic syndrome risk factor were randomly assigned to either an energy-restricted (approximately 6-7 MJ) LC diet (4%, 35%, and 61% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) or an isocaloric LF diet (46%, 24%, and 30% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) for 1 y. Weight, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk markers were assessed.
RESULTS:

Sixty-nine participants (59%) completed the trial: 33 in the LC group and 36 in the LF group. Both groups lost similar amounts of weight (LC: -14.5 +/- 1.7 kg; LF: -11.5 +/- 1.2 kg; P = 0.14, time x diet) and body fat (LC: -11.3 +/- 1.5 kg; LF: -9.4 +/- 1.2 kg; P = 0.30). Blood pressure, fasting glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein decreased independently of diet composition. Compared with the LF group, the LC group had greater decreases in triglycerides (-0.36 +/- 0.15 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.67, -0.05 mmol/L; P = 0.011), increases in HDL cholesterol (0.23 +/- 0.09 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.40 mmol/L; P = 0.018) and LDL cholesterol (0.6 +/- 0.2 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.0 mmol/L; P = 0.001), and a greater but nonsignificant increase in apolipoprotein B (0.08 +/- 0.04 g/L; 95% CI: -0.004, 0.171 g/L; P = 0.17).
CONCLUSIONS:

Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition. The LC diet may offer clinical benefits to obese persons with insulin resistance. However, the increase in LDL cholesterol with the LC diet suggests that this measure should be monitored. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry at (http://www.anzctr.org.au) as ACTR 12606000203550.





JAMA. 2007 Mar 7;297(9):969-77.
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial.
Gardner CD, Kiazand A, Alhassan S, Kim S, Stafford RS, Balise RR, Kraemer HC, King AC.
Source

Stanford Prevention Research Center and the Department of Medicine, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, Calif, USA. cgardner@stanford.edu
Erratum in

JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):178.

Abstract
CONTEXT:

Popular diets, particularly those low in carbohydrates, have challenged current recommendations advising a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet for weight loss. Potential benefits and risks have not been tested adequately.
OBJECTIVE:

To compare 4 weight-loss diets representing a spectrum of low to high carbohydrate intake for effects on weight loss and related metabolic variables.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Twelve-month randomized trial conducted in the United States from February 2003 to October 2005 among 311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic, premenopausal women.
INTERVENTION:

Participants were randomly assigned to follow the Atkins (n = 77), Zone (n = 79), LEARN (n = 79), or Ornish (n = 76) diets and received weekly instruction for 2 months, then an additional 10-month follow-up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Weight loss at 12 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included lipid profile (low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels), percentage of body fat, waist-hip ratio, fasting insulin and glucose levels, and blood pressure. Outcomes were assessed at months 0, 2, 6, and 12. The Tukey studentized range test was used to adjust for multiple testing.
RESULTS:

Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). Mean 12-month weight loss was as follows: Atkins, -4.7 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to -3.1 kg), Zone, -1.6 kg (95% CI, -2.8 to -0.4 kg), LEARN, -2.6 kg (-3.8 to -1.3 kg), and Ornish, -2.2 kg (-3.6 to -0.8 kg). Weight loss was not statistically different among the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish groups. At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.
CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.





J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5 Suppl 1):S24-8.
Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter?
Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC.
Source

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, USA. dschoell@nutrisci.wisc.edu
Abstract

Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (<90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (<25% of energy), hypocaloric diets, implying a 233 kcal/day greater energy deficit. It has therefore been suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet may provide a metabolic advantage (an increase in energy expenditure), resulting in a positive effect on weight loss and maintenance. However, a review of studies in which 24-hour energy expenditure was measured did not provide evidence to support a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets and showed little evidence of a metabolic advantage of high-protein (>25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets. We speculate that it is the protein, and not carbohydrate, content that is important in promoting short-term weight loss and that this effect is likely due to increased satiety caused by increased dietary protein. It has been suggested that the increased satiety might help persons to be more compliant with a hypocaloric diet and achieve greater weight loss. The current evidence, combined with the need to meet all nutrient requirements, suggests that hypocaloric weight-loss diets should be moderate in carbohydrate (35% to 50% of energy), moderate in fat (25% to 35% of energy), and protein should contribute 25% to 30% of energy intake. More studies of the efficacy of weight-loss and weight-maintenance diets that address protein content are needed. In addition, controlled studies of total energy expenditure or physical activity measured under free-living conditions that directly compare high-protein diets with those containing low and moderate carbohydrate content should also be performed.

Thorbjornn

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175736
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332207

Now, are we done seeing who can lift his leg higher to piss up each other's tree? Because I am. If you don't like a low carb or ketogenic diet don't follow it. But don't tell me what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

DatMurse

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

That's too simplistic and nothing more than internet broscience.

Surely you're being facetious.

Who, me or him? I don't believe it's a simple matter of calories in v. calories out, at least not in all cases. For most people yes, for a lot of people, no. That calories in v. calories out meme has been circulating on the internet since time immemorial.

Looks like you are not familiar with the energy balance equation nor the various factors that effect the energy out side of the equation

It looks like you're not familiar with metabolic disorders.

'Kthxbye.

You realize that metabolic disorders effect the "energy out" side, right?

Insulin resistance = fat storage = no loss of calories. Eat less <> storing less or using more. Then calories in v. calories out = epic fail.

adipose tissue itself creates insulin resistance. so being fat will forever make you fat and become fatter?
carbohydrate intake does not directly go to fat and fat oxidation is dependent upon glycogen availability.
Going on a hypocaloric diet has shown to decrease insulin resistance so that doesnt apply here.


BTW if you have hypothyroidism if you take in less calories than your body utilizes you will still lose weight.
being under calories is being below your total daily energy expenditure
ex. normal person tdee is 2k
hypothyroidism 1500
normal person takes in 1500 calories
hypothyroid person takes in 1500 calories.

the hypothyroid person is not in a caloric deficit now is he?
endocrinology 101.

Thats like saying dont eat under your tdee and you will lose weight. It doesnt make sense.

both are still in a deficit and both will still lose weight.
Your body requires energy for metabolic function. Movement uses calories
Laws of thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroy only transferred.
where is the knowledge coming from.


weight loss is not the same thing as fat loss. you will lose more weight on lower carb due to glycogen depletion.
it is much easier to diet off of low carb, and much better for you due to the physiological role of fat.

Cells dont open to receive glucose? LOL! you need to do some reading over the transport of carbohydrates

Fat and carbohydrates have shown to be a problem in those that are in a hypercaloric state.
hypercaloric state+ high carbs= increased insulin resistance=diabetes
hypocaloric state+high carbs=decreased insulin resistance
hypercaloric state+ high fats= high cholesterol and high triglycerdies = heart disease
hypocaloric state+high fats=low cholesterol and lower triglycerides

forget the fact that the calories you are taking in play a role. lets just blame the macronutrient

Dont talk about knowledge over physiology here because you clearly do not have any.

Acg67

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175736
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332207

Now, are we done seeing who can lift his leg higher to piss up each other's tree? Because I am. If you don't like a low carb or ketogenic diet don't follow it. But don't tell me what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

Strong copy paste skills

Couldn't find the full text of the first, the 2nd had ad lib intakes, 3rd was also ad lib. None look to have held protein or cals constant

Did you even read the full studies or you just copy pasted from some blog or forum you found?

FunkyTobias

J Intern Med. 2010 May;267(5):452-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02174.x. Epub 2009 Oct 6.
Long-term effects of weight loss with a very low carbohydrate and low fat diet on vascular function in overweight and obese patients.
Wycherley TP, Brinkworth GD, Keogh JB, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Clifton PM.
Source

Preventative Health Flagship, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Food and Nutritional Sciences, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

To compare the effects of an energy reduced very low carbohydrate, high saturated fat diet (LC) and an isocaloric high carbohydrate, low fat diet (LF) on endothelial function after 12 months.
DESIGN AND SUBJECTS:

Forty-nine overweight or obese patients (age 50.0 +/- 1.1 years, BMI 33.7 +/- 0.6 kg m(-2)) were randomized to either an energy restricted ( approximately 6-7 MJ), planned isocaloric LC or LF for 52 weeks. Body weight, endothelium-derived factors, flow-mediated dilatation (FMD), adiponectin, augmentation index (AIx) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were assessed. All data are mean +/- SEM.
RESULTS:

Weight loss was similar in both groups (LC -14.9 +/- 2.1 kg, LF -11.5 +/- 1.5 kg; P = 0.20). There was a significant time x diet effect for FMD (P = 0.045); FMD decreased in LC (5.7 +/- 0.7% to 3.7 +/- 0.5%) but remained unchanged in LF (5.9 +/- 0.5% to 5.5 +/- 0.7%). PWV improved in both groups (LC -1.4 +/- 0.6 m s(-1), LF -1.5 +/- 0.6 m s(-1); P = 0.001 for time) with no diet effect (P = 0.80). AIx and VCAM-1 did not change in either group. Adiponectin, eSelectin, tPA and PAI-1 improved similarly in both groups (P < 0.01 for time).
CONCLUSION:

Both LC and LF hypoenergetic diets achieved similar reductions in body weight and were associated with improvements in PWV and a number of endothelium-derived factors. However, the LC diet impaired FMD suggesting chronic consumption of a LC diet may have detrimental effects on endothelial function.





Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 3;153(3):147-57. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00005.
Weight and metabolic outcomes after 2 years on a low-carbohydrate versus low-fat diet: a randomized trial.
Foster GD, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, Makris AP, Rosenbaum DL, Brill C, Stein RI, Mohammed BS, Miller B, Rader DJ, Zemel B, Wadden TA, Tenhave T, Newcomb CW, Klein S.
Source

Center for Obesity Research and Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140, USA. gfoster@temple.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Previous studies comparing low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets have not included a comprehensive behavioral treatment, resulting in suboptimal weight loss.
OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the effects of 2-year treatment with a low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet, each of which was combined with a comprehensive lifestyle modification program.
DESIGN:

Randomized parallel-group trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00143936)
SETTING:

3 academic medical centers.
PATIENTS:

307 participants with a mean age of 45.5 years (SD, 9.7 years) and mean body mass index of 36.1 kg/m(2) (SD, 3.5 kg/m(2)).
INTERVENTION:

A low-carbohydrate diet, which consisted of limited carbohydrate intake (20 g/d for 3 months) in the form of low-glycemic index vegetables with unrestricted consumption of fat and protein. After 3 months, participants in the low-carbohydrate diet group increased their carbohydrate intake (5 g/d per wk) until a stable and desired weight was achieved. A low-fat diet consisted of limited energy intake (1200 to 1800 kcal/d; <or=30% calories from fat). Both diets were combined with comprehensive behavioral treatment.
MEASUREMENTS:

Weight at 2 years was the primary outcome. Secondary measures included weight at 3, 6, and 12 months and serum lipid concentrations, blood pressure, urinary ketones, symptoms, bone mineral density, and body composition throughout the study.
RESULTS:

Weight loss was approximately 11 kg (11%) at 1 year and 7 kg (7%) at 2 years. There were no differences in weight, body composition, or bone mineral density between the groups at any time point. During the first 6 months, the low-carbohydrate diet group had greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure, triglyceride levels, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lesser reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and more adverse symptoms than did the low-fat diet group. The low-carbohydrate diet group had greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at all time points, approximating a 23% increase at 2 years.
LIMITATION:

Intensive behavioral treatment was provided, patients with dyslipidemia and diabetes were excluded, and attrition at 2 years was high.
CONCLUSION:

Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 year

Thorbjornn

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175736
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332207

Now, are we done seeing who can lift his leg higher to piss up each other's tree? Because I am. If you don't like a low carb or ketogenic diet don't follow it. But don't tell me what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

Strong copy paste skills

Couldn't find the full text of the first, the 2nd had ad lib intakes, 3rd was also ad lib. None look to have held protein or cals constant

Did you even read the full studies or you just copy pasted from some blog or forum you found?

Google is your friend: "ketogenic diet pubmed". Reading is "fun"damental.

FunkyTobias

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175736
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332207

Now, are we done seeing who can lift his leg higher to piss up each other's tree? Because I am. If you don't like a low carb or ketogenic diet don't follow it. But don't tell me what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

Couldn't find the full text of the first, the 2nd had ad lib intakes, 3rd was also ad lib. None look to have held protein or cals constant

Did you even read the full studies or you just copy pasted from some blog or forum you found?

And the fourth had nothing to do with fat loss at all. It discussed the use of ketogenic diets for conditions other than epilepsy (Parkinsons, siezures, etc.)
Strong copy paste skills

DatMurse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175736
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835211
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332207

Now, are we done seeing who can lift his leg higher to piss up each other's tree? Because I am. If you don't like a low carb or ketogenic diet don't follow it. But don't tell me what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

Strong copy paste skills

Couldn't find the full text of the first, the 2nd had ad lib intakes, 3rd was also ad lib. None look to have held protein or cals constant

Did you even read the full studies or you just copy pasted from some blog or forum you found?

Google is your friend: "ketogenic diet pubmed". Reading is "fun"damental.

arguing over information and not knowing the basis of what your points are may be even worse.

CoachTommyB

Question, Now I've heard that alot of body builders use this diet. Is that to stay lean, or can you actually build muscle? My thoughts were that you need carbohidrates to build muscle.

CoachReddy

Question, Now I've heard that alot of body builders use this diet. Is that to stay lean, or can you actually build muscle? My thoughts were that you need carbohidrates to build muscle.

i'm sure they carb cycle just like a bulk/cut cycle

RiesigJay

Some bodybuilders use the diet to cut. So they spend the off season getting fat and gaining muscle and shred the fat off with keto (and a cornucopia of drugs).

Yes, you need carbs to build muscle. Some say muscle building can be done on keto but I have yet to see proof.

CoachReddy

Some bodybuilders use the diet to cut. So they spend the off season getting fat and gaining muscle and shred the fat off with keto (and a cornucopia of drugs).

Yes, you need carbs to build muscle. Some say muscle building can be done on keto but I have yet to see proof.

if you don't build any muscle, you're going to have a tough time getting to 6% bf

just pointing that out.

RiesigJay

Dude, YOU don't have any muscle, and you look to be around 6% bodyfat.