Ketogenic diet
Replies
-
*grabs popcorn*
Should be pretty obvious which side of the debate I fall on. And if it's not, well...I'm sure low-carb vegetarians exist, but I wouldn't want to eat their food.
It's fairly easy to have moderate to lower carbs as a vegetarian. I sort of started out with a moderate amount of carbs (around 125-150 grams per day) when I was first dieting because I wasn't very active and protein was most satiating for me and because I had a low calorie allowance.
I don't think I could do keto levels of low carbing, firstly because I don't find fat satiating, but even if I did, I think I'd struggle with keto because I like vegetables in larger portions than keto would allow. I've looked at my net carbs on my veggie intake. When I take into account the carbs I get from my protein sources (mostly dairy) and my veggie intake, it would really, really be a trial for me to stay under 50 grams a day.
Of course, this was just an exercise in hypotheticals for me at this point. I'm very active and find a mix of protein and starch with just a bit of fat thrown in to be my sweet spot for satiety. I have no plans moving forward to change my way of eating. It took me a whole year of struggling to finally arrive at this point. Pass the popcorn, I love the stuff.6 -
I did this program a few years back. Lost 90 pounds. As soon as I started eating carbs again I gained 20 pounds back really quickly.. Now I just limit my daily carb intake. I was still able to enjoy alcohol it was just that I had to cut out beer. So vodka and soda water with a splash of lemon or lime. Seemed to do the trick.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »@psuLemon Maybe the definition of CICO has changed. Last I looked it didn't account for how diet affects BMR or how some people are genetically predisposed to obesity/excess fat storage.
Also keto isn't as simple as CICO. Keto makes the claim of reducing the body's resistance to fat loss.
psulemon can jump in too, but CICO just means that whether you lose, gain, or maintain depends on CI vs. CO. Lots of things (a thyroid condition, for example) could affect either CI or CO.
That said, what "keto" claims depends on who is doing the claiming. There doesn't seem to be any credible evidence that keto makes a real difference in how fast you lose fat (or a plausible explanation for why it would, as we burn fat without doing keto and can turn dietary fat into body fat quite easily, of course). I did keto for a bit and did not see any differences. Also, obviously, plenty maintain and bulk on keto.
Many of those successful on keto (or other lower carb ways of eating, as well as plenty of other ways of eating) will say, instead, that they tend to eat fewer calories more easily eating that way, and for me that resonates some.
Pretty much. People have to realize that some diets might provide benefits to the individual. Protein based diets tend to increase satiety, which then leads to greater compliance. Some people see improvements to energy (which can increase NEAT and TEA) from a diet in carbs... others see the improvements when restricting carbs. Those with IR tend to see improvement with LC or Keto, while those who are IS tend to see improvements with carb heavier diets.
Having said all of that, when you control for calories and protein, there is no difference between a keto diet and a high carb diet in metabolic ward studies.11 -
I began low-carbing three days ago and have lost 4 lbs so far. Weight Watchers or any other diets that follow the CICO with carbs just don't work for me. I used to get so frustrated because I tried WW a million times and could never lose weight while my friends would be dropping 25 lbs! The Scarsdale diet, which is basically low carb really works best for me but I decided to try something different and I'm liking it a lot! Like others have said, different things work for different people. I drink about a half cup of kiefer every other day to keep good bacteria in my gut and that works like a charm!10
-
@lemurcat12 CICO seems to have improved. The CICO I learned since I was an obese 9 yr old and up through college was that "a calorie is a calorie...Doesn't matter what source it comes from... Eat less exercise more...You're fat simply because you eat too much and exercise too little." Now some of that may be true, but the idea that eating 2000 calories of high glycemic food vs. eating 2000 calories of low glycemic food will result in the same weight loss is BS. I was also taught that weightlifting only built muscle and did not burn fat and the only way to burn fat was through endless hours of aerobic activity. This was the 80's...20
-
TavistockToad wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »No. I like carbs.
this
this times 1000 -
My diet is close to keto, but not quite. I'm at 15% carbs, but I usually don't reach that on a daily basis. I tried to bring my carbs up to a "normal" level and it was a disaster. I felt like crap and I ended up making very poor food choices.
My bigger problem with the orthodox keto diet is that it doesn't call for enough protein, which I think is odd. For me it was only recommending something like 80g.
So right now I have my goals set to 1600 Calories, 80C/80F/140P. I always try my hardest to hit my protein goal, and usually go over my fat goal. But carb goal is a non negotiable binding constraint.4 -
Yes. Only way I can actually lose weight without feeling like I'm starving. First 3 weeks are painful, but after that it's great fo me. CICO is oversimplified. Our bodies are complex. Everybodies body reacts differently to different macronutrients. I know people who live on carbs/sugar and are slim and full of energy. If I ate what they did, I would gain weight and have zero energy.
keto is CICO...7 -
@lemurcat12 CICO seems to have improved. The CICO I learned since I was an obese 9 yr old and up through college was that "a calorie is a calorie...Doesn't matter what source it comes from... Eat less exercise more...You're fat simply because you eat too much and exercise too little." Now some of that may be true, but the idea that eating 2000 calories of high glycemic food vs. eating 2000 calories of low glycemic food will result in the same weight loss is BS. I was also taught that weightlifting only built muscle and did not burn fat and the only way to burn fat was through endless hours of aerobic activity. This was the 80's...
here...we...go...
if you eat 2000 calories of High Glycemic food and 2000 of low glycemic and that is a 500 calories deficit then yes you will lose the same weight..
CICO has always mean the same thing ...CI<CO = weight loss; CI=CO = maintain; CI>CO = weight gain9 -
@lemurcat12 CICO seems to have improved. The CICO I learned since I was an obese 9 yr old and up through college was that "a calorie is a calorie...Doesn't matter what source it comes from... Eat less exercise more...You're fat simply because you eat too much and exercise too little." Now some of that may be true, but the idea that eating 2000 calories of high glycemic food vs. eating 2000 calories of low glycemic food will result in the same weight loss is BS. I was also taught that weightlifting only built muscle and did not burn fat and the only way to burn fat was through endless hours of aerobic activity. This was the 80's...
its not BS. I lose the same amount of weight eating more"junk food" in my diet as compared to eating less junk and more fruits and veggies, its all about the calories. I even have a metabolic disorder and eating one way over another makes no difference for me. I did get fat because I ate too much and moved too little. I was always thin until my early 30s.
Then I got lazier and ate more and also came off a medication that boosted my metabolism(it was for asthma and was basically speed). if being fat or thin was genetic then I should have never became fat because both my parents were normal healthy weights. neither was obese.same with my grandparents on both sides. and me and all my sisters became fat even the ones who have different dads and their dads were all tall and thin. all of us were thin when we were younger. throw out all the bull from the 80s (except for a calorie is a calorie as that is still the case).9 -
@lemurcat12 CICO seems to have improved. The CICO I learned since I was an obese 9 yr old and up through college was that "a calorie is a calorie...Doesn't matter what source it comes from... Eat less exercise more...You're fat simply because you eat too much and exercise too little." Now some of that may be true, but the idea that eating 2000 calories of high glycemic food vs. eating 2000 calories of low glycemic food will result in the same weight loss is BS. I was also taught that weightlifting only built muscle and did not burn fat and the only way to burn fat was through endless hours of aerobic activity. This was the 80's...
The problem you have is you have a linear thought process. As a mentioned, foods can support energy, which can cause transient differences in NEAT/TEA activities. For example, I lost more weight at 2300 calories, than I did at 1800 calories. Why, because eating more calories allowed me to become more active, push harder during my workouts and overall increase EE. It also caused less compliance issues.
In metabolic ward studies, there is no difference between the diets. The below two threads discuss the science.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10558467/brad-schoenfeld-facts-and-fallacies-of-fat-loss/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest
And it should be noted that keto diets are terrible for muscle gains.
11 -
And it should be noted that keto diets are terrible for muscle gains.
worth stating.
Men's Fitness just published this article, well worth reading
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/i-lift-keto-diet-good-idea-me3 -
And it should be noted that keto diets are terrible for muscle gains.
worth stating.
Men's Fitness just published this article, well worth reading
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/i-lift-keto-diet-good-idea-me
mens fitness is not a reliable source. a lot of what they publish is rubbish
6 -
@lemurcat12 CICO seems to have improved. The CICO I learned since I was an obese 9 yr old and up through college was that "a calorie is a calorie...Doesn't matter what source it comes from... Eat less exercise more...You're fat simply because you eat too much and exercise too little." Now some of that may be true, but the idea that eating 2000 calories of high glycemic food vs. eating 2000 calories of low glycemic food will result in the same weight loss is BS. I was also taught that weightlifting only built muscle and did not burn fat and the only way to burn fat was through endless hours of aerobic activity. This was the 80's...
CICO hasn't changed, maybe how it's talked about has changed, don't know.
When I was younger (including in the '80s) I recall hearing that calories were what mattered for weight loss and that you lose by moving more and eating less (not those words, but the concept), but I never took from that that what you ate didn't matter for any purposes, including health (of course) and how you felt and how hungry you might be. Indeed, my mom's "if you are hungry, have a piece of fruit or some vegetables, if you don't want those, you aren't hungry" kind of went along with the idea.
As for high GI vs low GI foods, I really think GI is overrated (although I think what we eat matters), and I am extremely skeptical that eating lots of high GI foods will decrease ones BMR. What I do think is that for many people foods that happen to be high GI (which are often also so called hyperpalatable foods that have lots of fat and refined carbs) will be less filling and easier to overeat, so that if you fill your diet with high GI foods you likely will be more likely to overeat (including but not limited to the fact you may well be hungrier). Does diet make a difference to how much people are likely to overeat (especially if they aren't carefully counting or find it burdensome)? Obviously!
Now were the '80s a little overly obsessed with aerobics? I will not disagree with that! I wish I'd learned about weights back then too, but at least where I was it was not as commonly seen as a priority for girls or women. I do enjoy running and biking and swimming, but I wish I'd known about progressive lifting programs much earlier, as I think I would have gotten into it in a healthy way.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
And it should be noted that keto diets are terrible for muscle gains.
worth stating.
Men's Fitness just published this article, well worth reading
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/i-lift-keto-diet-good-idea-me
mens fitness is not a reliable source. a lot of what they publish is rubbish
a lot of what every fitness magazine, blog, journal, website etc publishes is rubbish. Including pure scientific studies.
That's the nature of the field. There is shockingly little consensus in the fitness community of any kind.6 -
@lemurcat12 Actually I'm not sure about BMR. I guess what I was refering to was NEAT. I know our energy level is affected by what we eat. Each individual is different. I certainly know how to count calories and measure portions and when I diet I'm obsessive about tracking everything. I have seen a tremendous difference in weight loss and energy level depending on what I eat. On a 2000 calorie keto diet I was rarely hungry, lost fat quickly, maintained muscle and had plenty of energy to lift weights. On a 2000 calorie 30/30/40 diet, I had a similar response except when I started lifting, my energy level was constantly low. When I was on a 2000 calorie diet based on the USDA recommendations, I was always hungry, lost weight very slow, and had so little energy all the time I didn't even want to think about lifting (same result at 2400 cals on this diet).
I'm not saying keto is best for everyone, but it certainly is best for me based on my current goal of maintaining muscle while maximizing fat loss.9 -
@CharlieBeansmomTracey As I have said before, each individual responds differently ti different types of food. My mtabolic response is different than yours. For you carbs don't seem to matter. For me they do. If I eat junk carbs at any calorie level, my energy is very low all the time. The type of calorie makes a differrence in the individual response. My wife feels horrible with low energy on keto but loses weight on a high carb, calorie restricted diet. A calorie is a calorie, but how it affects energy level is where the difference is.11
-
Yes! Keto has been great for me. I've lost 23 lbs since mid August. I feel so much better than I did before starting keto. ❤❤❤4
-
@psuLemon Haha, you keep saying things I agree with! Yes, I agree about NEAT/TEA. Perhaps the reason I lose weight fast and have so much energy on keto is because my BF is well over 30% and it gives an endless source of fuel.
Also agree that keto is not optimal for gains. But my problem is not that I want more muscle, I just want less fat.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions