Keto vs Intermittent fasting?

IF was the only thing that worked for me and I was able to keep doing it, I actually enjoyed. Every other diet or strategies I tried didn't really worked for me for some reason. I think IF fits my lifestyle better. It's worth trying and seeing if that's the case for you too.
 
Keto worked a treat for me. I found it very easy to stay on a deficit because I felt full most of the time. I've done keto 3 times, each for a month, and ended up losing anywhere from 10-20lbs during that time. I have before and after pictures and jesus christ there is a huge difference. Try strict keto for a month a see how much better you feel.
 
Doing Keto right now.

I had a pretty rough detox with rashes, itching, fast heart beat and other weird things but all is well after a month and a half now. Energy is great, focus is on point, heart rate has lowered, blood pressure has lowered, strength is the same or better despite losing body fat.

Since you can eat stuff like bacon, red meat, cheese, butter and eggs, keto is super easy to stick to. I still crave sweets from time to time but I can fix that craving with sugar free Jello or a diet soda.

Cutting out carbs and sugar is the best thing you can do to lose weight or just feel better. Try it for a month or two and see how you feel. I don't know how healthy it is long term but I'm sticking with it until I see something negative. After the initial detox, everything is great.
 
I go for intermittent fasting, i can easily do 24 hours without eating, sometimes even more, i just go crazy with the coffee at work.

However when i sit down to eat, i eat period, i dont want to worry about calories.

So IF, just because its easier.
 
I'm about to get fat again and I want to avoid that. Usually when I need to correct my life and get back on track with weight I did "Low car" aka keto. Lately I've also heard some things about intermittent fast. Can someone share their opinions on the differences. I'd like to lose 10-15 lbs.

I've tried low carbs but it's really hard to stick to if you eat out or get pre-prepared meals a lot (everything comes with rice or bread here), and when I was super strict I felt drained.

Intermittent fasting, for me, is easier to stick to and effective. You don't need to think about what you're eating, just when.

Never was a big soda drinker but cutting that out completely is a great place to start. Now I can hardly drink the stuff.
 
no one knows your body.. try out both and see what happens aka which one you vibe with

people make to big of a deal out of this shit.. as others mentioned this aint rocket science, work out more/eat less
 
Intermittent fasting is great because its easy. No calorie counting, no pain in the ass meal prepping, you can even really eat poor quality food and still reach your goals. I disagree with the poster that said it won't work because you can still have a calorie surplus, which is technically true but likely won't happen unless you're eating nothing but candy and cake. Not to mention when you are fasting regularly your stomach will shrink, so its going to be hard to take in surplus calories anyway.

I did intermittent fasting for the first time recently to make weight for my last fight. I personally did 16 hour fasts with 8 hours of eating. I stopped eating at 10pm and fasted until 2pm the next day. If I was just working out recreationally once a day I probably would have kept with the fasting. However I was only able to use intermittent fasting about 3 and half weeks into the camp because my weight was dropping to fast and I didn't have optimal energy levels for 6am and 12pm training sessions. I had to add a light breakfast and dinner to my daily intake to not feel sluggish.

I think fasting for fighters would probably be best just as a weight loss kickstart, but if you're just trying to slim down for the beach then fasting is awesome for the reasons in my first paragraph. You can just fast while you're at work and when you get home you can feel great knowing that you're still achieving your weight loss goals even though you just stuffed a cheeseburger down your throat.
 
I've been IF for 2 weeks now. Yes obviously, you will by default eat less calories than if you are eating 3 meals and snacking all day. Your stomach shrinks down and even moderately sized meals fill you up quick.. Whether the whole "insulin spike drop" theory is the reason or not, but I lost 5 lbs (with HIIT, and lifting) in my first 8 days, and I didn't even eat that clean for my meals. ( I'm 5'9 and a strong 168, but can easily cut down to a very lean 155, which is the goal). I gotta tell you though, I stop eating at 8:30 pm and fast till 1:30 in the afternoon.. I am fucking crazy with energy all morning.. I actually love it. I'm a madman on one cup of coffee and no food for 16 hours. My endurance (not necessarily my power) at the gym has increased as well, and I'm no spring chicken.
 
Eating less to lose weight is bs for me.

I eat plenty, but i eat clean. I never feel hungry and always feel mentally ripe. I started off at 211 pounds and am now down to 198 in 2 months time, working out 7 days a week and eating 5-6 good meals a day. I eat 400 calories more a day than what i read i should be. Muscle tone is replacing fat stores and weight is slowly coming off nonetheless.

I simply attribute it to hard work in the gym and a clean diet. No need to starve.

Supps i take are cla, multivitamins, protein shakes.


The last time i did a heavy caloric deficit where i barely consumed, i lost too much muscle ...lost tons of weight but my muscles went away. Driving on low tank is never good.
 
Last edited:
I don't like diets. The best approach is simply a HEALTHY LIFESTYLE and the key word here is "LIFE". A diet only lasts a week or a month, a healthy lifestyle should last for life.
 
Eating less to lose weight is bs for me.

I eat plenty, but i eat clean. I never feel hungry and always feel mentally ripe. I started off at 211 pounds and am now down to 198 in 2 months time, working out 7 days a week and eating 5-6 good meals a day. I eat 400 calories more a day than what i read i should be. Muscle tone is replacing fat stores and weight is slowly coming off nonetheless.

I simply attribute it to hard work in the gym and a clean diet. No need to starve.

Supps i take are cla, multivitamins, protein shakes.


The last time i did a heavy caloric deficit where i barely consumed, i lost too much muscle ...lost tons of weight but my muscles went away. Driving on low tank is never good.
No matter what you did, whether it be through diet or energy expenditure, you were in a deficit to get down to 198. Sometimes it makes sense to eat more and do more but not always.
 
Age can be a huge factor.

And intermittent fasting isn't really a "diet", it's something I can sustain indefinitely without much effort.
 
I do IF because is easy for me skip breakfast except for a coffe with coconut milk and while I am not an example or being ripped I even got some definition over my belly. I am sure that if I cut carbos and chocolate I would lose abdominal fat and some in the hips but feel great with 1,78 cm and 96 kilos, can train judo very hard.
Water is super important when fasting, if many people say 2 lts a day I would drink more if you´re kind of big and are training.

***Sometimes I train in a fasted state, if somebody knows if there are real benefits would love to hear it please as I cannot find a definitive answer to the subject.
 
Really at the end of the day you need to be in a caloric deficit to loose weight, keto, IF, they help but are "styles" that help you stay on track depending on how you are

IF is basically a plan that lets you eat gargantuan meals, if you're the type in life that likes to do everything go big or go home, it can work, but if not, it may not. Keto works for a minority of the population to be honest. Every coach swears by it because it "helps" (carbs bind to water, so dropping the carbs have you losing alot so it looks good, but its just water weight), if it works for you, then more power to you. Personally, me and most others, it has the same effect: tired, lethargic, terrible diarrhea, and acne problems. But if you happen to be of the minority that functions on it, it'll be a good diet.

Regardless, to lose weight, you need to be at a deficit, and more important, you have to accept that this is a longer journey and not a quick fast cycle. 10-15lbs, if its really in fat, will take between 7-15 weeks. Most are not able to handle 2lbs/week loss right off the bat, the deficit is very deep and alot crack within 2-5 weeks. Again, if you can do this, its great, but its best to start normal, then slowly escalade and build up.

The reason why people get the "keto flu" is usually a sodium deficiency. When you lose the water you lose massive amounts of sodium, so adding salt is a must. After a week or 2 on keto you will feel better then before. After 4 weeks you will be adapted (most people) some take longer. The biggest problem is that people give up after a few days because they feel like crap.. just toughen it out and you will great..

Fasting will get you into keto faster but it is hard if you are not motivated.. start with a 16 hour fast
 
The reason why people get the "keto flu" is usually a sodium deficiency. When you lose the water you lose massive amounts of sodium, so adding salt is a must. After a week or 2 on keto you will feel better then before. After 4 weeks you will be adapted (most people) some take longer. The biggest problem is that people give up after a few days because they feel like crap.. just toughen it out and you will great..

Fasting will get you into keto faster but it is hard if you are not motivated.. start with a 16 hour fast

I'm on a carnivore diet now and feel amazing
 
I think the biggest thing for a lot of people is that many in the West do eat far too many simple carbohydrates.

You don't have to go strict keto but most people do far better on a diet that eliminates desserts and all sweetened bread products entirely and the starches that are still present are fibrous starches served with lots of vegetables.
 
I'm about to get fat again and I want to avoid that. Usually when I need to correct my life and get back on track with weight I did "Low car" aka keto. Lately I've also heard some things about intermittent fast. Can someone share their opinions on the differences. I'd like to lose 10-15 lbs.

I too enjoy following a low car diet. You know how many calories there are in a Buick?

But personally I think keto's a fad. If it's worked for you before then sure, but just cutting out processed foods and eating mostly vegetables, meat, fruit, grains if you want, etc. is easier and proven to have the same effects on satiety.

As for IF, the majority of the people I know on it have binge eating disorder that gets worse from fasting so IDK. Works for some people I suppose.
 
I'm pleased to find this thread here! I've been researching fasting for quite a while now. I have no personal experience on extended ketogenic eating, but quite a lot of experience on sporadically fasting and conversing with a lot of keto and fasting users. My normal fasting is a strict fast, zero calories, only water. I do not do it at regular intervals though, because I find the more flexible I can be with it, the better it works for me and the more sustainable it is. I've seen people mean a lot of things by intermittent fasting. Some consider a restricted eating window, like 16:8 or 20:4, to be intermittent fasting. You're technically fasting during the lion's share of the day but I think it's better to just call it a restricted eating window, rather than fasting. Because it can still feel quite normal, and satiating, and can be done indefinitely, maintaining your normal weight. I don't even like to call it a diet. It's just a way of timing what you choose to eat. A lot of people simply eat what they'd normally want to eat within that time frame, no bother in calorie counting, and no bother as to ratios of macronutrients, etc, and still see beneficial results from it, I've noticed. It helps to know who is defining the term and how.

Then there's the idea of a fasting mimetic way of eating and an alternate-day fasting that has research out there. Although the "fasting" might be something of a misnomer, again, and it matters who is defining it. If you treat the meaning strictly as only water, the way I usually mean it, a lot of these really aren't that strict. Many alternate-day fasts, are just cycling on and off between very low calorie and regular calorie days. It might also be far easier than fasting the way I do it. It can still be very beneficial, but it's not going "all in."

Ketogenic diets and intermittent fasting can be combined as well, so it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. If you're fasting through most of the day, then eating a ketogenic meal, like a steak and an avocado, you've combined the ideas, essentially, and if you feel well doing it, it might be a powerful route for you.

If you're interested in any of those meanings of fasting, I can direct you to some videos with some of the doctors who research and employ the protocols, giving explanations about the kind of interesting processes the body goes through when forced to adapt during fasting, and some of the background on animal studies, as well as some patients showing you how they incorporate it into their lives, in documentaries and interviews. You may have already found them though by now. As a side note, I think we're going to see more and more about these types of diets with regard to disease treatment and prevention of the big three (diabetes, cancer, heart disease). Anyway, another note on Keto VS IF is that extended fasts will necessarily put you in ketosis anyway, if you choose to extend them to that point, which you certainly don't have to do, in order to practice fasting. Still worth noting.

Look for something more sustainable, imo. Both of those diets are based mostly in pseudoscience/bro science.

I have not found that to be true at all in my research on it, Blues. But neither ketogenic nor intermittent fasting really addresses a specific diet, by definition. Because you can come up with all kinds of strange eating habits within those two ways of eating, and they may be healthy or not, and the science may promote or discourage them, is the problem I have with this framing. Once you get into the matter, you realize each label can be very vague to practitioners. Too vague. There is plenty of very real science by very real scientists to base these practices on. But you can have a ketogenic diet of nothing but Bob Evans sausages, and someone try to justify it with real science, wrongfully. It doesn't mean the scientists involved in the real research are telling people to do that, that I know of. You can fast 24 hours on, 24 hours off and break each fast with a bucket of chocolate ice cream, in its entirety, but it's not like anyone from the NIH who advocates for fasting is recommending that. Yet, you can do those things based on the vague terminology.

That is why, like the term "supplements," it is too vague to defend against charlatans latching on and going for a ride with it, but it does not discredit the concepts as useful or the science they're based on. Maybe you've seen a lot of bro science pundits advocating for these practices, or using unscientific explanation or justification, but there is a large fasting community and keto community I have seen simply basing their diets on MD's, biologists, etc, having put the ideas to the test in the domain of legitimate science.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top