Disadvantages of Keto diet

ogmomma2012 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

ogmomma2012 wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

If you like to eat carbs and enjoy things like ice cream, cake, etc., then keto is a disadvantage.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I can easily make these things keto and they don't trigger a binge & food coma like high-carb "real" cakes and ice cream.

Have you ever had a steak coma... best thing ever!!! I get one every time I go to texas de brazil or korean bbq. So much better than any crappy cake coma (which is mainly fat btw )

Nope, never had a steak coma, because I am much more aware of how my body feels and so I don't overeat steak.

dykask wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

Sued0nim wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

My point has been clearly made.

In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.

I am so lost as to your opinion in this thread. You have previously posted that you are anti-keto because you like fruit, especially fruits that are considered high in sugar (fructose). But, you are anti-sugar.

I'm anti added refined sugar. Sugar can't be completely avoided but we don't need to add more or consume it in a form that is rapidly absorbed. So while I will eat fruit I'll avoid fruit juice. The reason is I do believe fructose is probably too high of concentrations in juice and sugars in liquids are absorbed very quickly into the blood.

As people have pointed out, toxicity is often about the dosage. Eat an apple and over the next 90 minutes about 10 grams of fructose hit your liver. Drink a glass of apple juice and over the next few minutes 25 grams of fructose hit your liver. Probably more than a 10x difference in dosage over time.

Whole fruit has fiber and lots of other nutrients that justify the risks caused by fructose. Also some fruits are vital to me because the reduce the impact of sodium, for example a banana a day.

Generally I'm mostly avoiding processed foods that have added sugar. That is actually pretty easy to do in Japan, I think it would take a lot more work in the US.

The ketosis diets are much more restrictive. But I think the restrictions on carbs forces people to avoid adding sugar. So the diet benefits from that. I'm not really anti-ketosis, I just think it is difficult to achieve, hard to maintain and isn't necessary for weight loss.

In my mind I've have about 4 groups of foods for sugar:
AVOID 100% - sugar in liquids
Mostly AVOID - processed foods (I make an exception for peanut butter and chocolate in small amounts)
RARELY - deserts
OKAY - Foods with fiber and without added sugars.

I may play around with cutting fruit at some point, but currently my hunger is controlled and I'm losing fat so I don't see the need to do that right now.

Just to point out, Alan Aragon suggest many of the diet strategies you employ. He is one of the most unbiased people and doesnt fear monger like the likes of Dr. Lustig. What i do get a laugh about is the lustig is overweight himself. You would think that being in his position, he would be more fit.

It may be that the blog I read is atypical, we all have our issues. As for Dr. Lustig being overweight, he may well be. Dr. Atkins was also overweight, probably to a much higher degree. Being thin doesn't seem to be a requirement for talking about diet. (Just watch some of the interviews with Dr. Atkins if you don't believe that.)

I don't think there are any claims that cutting back on sugar is a magic cure, it just gets rid of a barrier that causing a lot of people issues. It still takes effort to lose weight. In my own case I only had a few spots in may diet that were high sugar. I cut them because of calories not because of sugar. After that my hunger went down which I found confusing at first. Two years ago when I was trying to lose a lot of fat I really suffered from hunger. It is in my search for why I'm not so hungry that I ran across Dr. Lutig's presentations. I really find it hard to believe that people would consider those presentations fear mongering. I guess that just shows the addictive power of sugar. I guess I'm lucky that I don't crave sugar so much.

I'm sorry but the juxtaposition of these two phrases made me smile.

he even debunked himself https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

That isn't debunking. That is just an attack by someone hoping to fool people. The same kind of attacks can be done to anyone.

If you listen to the long talks he explains that position. While you get fructose from eating fruit, it is at a much lower level spread out more in time and the whole fruits typically come with enough benefits to balance out the negative effects of fructose.

Also what do you say about the video I posted where he claims table sugar is somehow a carb and a fat and that there's no natural food that has carbs and fat? That's objectively a falsehood. The man doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

I have no idea, but that is a hack job video. It wasn't said in the presentations I watched.

In fact the data shows added sugar availability has gone down from a high of 26.4 teaspoons a day to 22 teaspoons a day in 2013. I'm assuming availability is basically consumption because they even show overall calories. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx, which by this data has from 2039 kc in 1979 to 2544 in 2013. There is lots of bouncing around in those figures and the high was in 2607 kc in 2002. These figures are per capita.

There are a lots of problems with claiming this shows sugar isn't a problem.
1) 22 teaspoons a day of ADDED sugar is still INSANELY high. It is about 4x what W.H.O. recommends.


That is why I personally think it is something else like added sugars that's makes the difference. It could be something else too, but there has to be a reason why radically different diet approaches work.

psulemon wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

<snip>

I wouldn't try to claim that people in ketosis don't experience profound metabolic improvements. However that isn't an ketosis only advantage either as there are many diets and approaches that accomplish that goal. That is why I personally think it is something else like added sugars that's makes the difference. It could be something else too, but there has to be a reason why radically different diet approaches work.

I don't agree that there isn't anything different going on with ketosis but I absolutely believe that improved diet quality eating low carb is partly responsible for the good health some people experience and the improved health markers shown in studies. Christopher Gardner even listed diet quality as a potential confounding variable on his latest study.

When you take away these foods:

You're left with a ton of nutritious foods to choose from and not much else:

Increasing food quality alone can improve health but not as much as weight loss and exercise. But for optimal health, you should do all three.

My issue with your chart is limiting high sugar fruits, rice and things like potatoes. All of those are highly nutrient dense and only need to limited by those with IR or medical issues. Applying that to everyone is meaningless.

For the life of me I can not figure out how every single post I make is somehow supposed to apply to the entire population. If MFP offered signatures I'd be happy to put in a disclaimer to avoid this confusion.

• Just because I say I don't need to count calories eating a low carb diet does not mean everyone else who doesn't eat a low carb diet needs to count calories.
  
• Just because cake and ice cream trigger binges in a poster does not mean anyone was saying carbs trigger binges in everyone. That's absurd.
  
• Just because there are studies that show improved health markers eating a low carb diet (even without weight loss) that does not mean everyone experiences improved health eating a low carb diet.
  
• Just because some peoples diet quality improves when switching to a low carb diet does not mean that applies to everyone.

A low carb diet limits sugars and starches regardless of whether they're nutrient dense or not. Whether there's a medical need or not. It's the foundation of the diet so OF COURSE it only applies to those who choose to eat a low carb diet.

I dont know where you are going with your post, it was in response to that first spoiler which somehow depicits high nutrious foods as bad.

nvmomketo wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

<snip>

I wouldn't try to claim that people in ketosis don't experience profound metabolic improvements. However that isn't an ketosis only advantage either as there are many diets and approaches that accomplish that goal. That is why I personally think it is something else like added sugars that's makes the difference. It could be something else too, but there has to be a reason why radically different diet approaches work.

I don't agree that there isn't anything different going on with ketosis but I absolutely believe that improved diet quality eating low carb is partly responsible for the good health some people experience and the improved health markers shown in studies. Christopher Gardner even listed diet quality as a potential confounding variable on his latest study.

When you take away these foods:

You're left with a ton of nutritious foods to choose from and not much else:

Increasing food quality alone can improve health but not as much as weight loss and exercise. But for optimal health, you should do all three.

My issue with your chart is limiting high sugar fruits, rice and things like potatoes. All of those are highly nutrient dense and only need to limited by those with IR or medical issues. Applying that to everyone is meaningless.

People don't need those specific sources of nutrient dense foods though. Those of us who are low carb choose other nurient dense food because they are lower carb. It is not being applied to everyone is the point here.

Rice hasn't been available to my north eastern European ancestors for more than a couple of hundred years. At most. We made due with other vegetables and meats. Rice is not bad but we don't need it.

Potatoes were thought of as food only fit for livestock until just over a couple hundred years ago. My ancestors did fine without it. Potatoes are not bad but we don't need them.

And we didn't have the high sugar fruits from the tropics. We don't need those either. Berries and some apples was probably the extent of it.

These foods you listed are not needed for good health. At all. There are so many nutritious options, that are low carb, that people on a low carb diet can choose instead. People on a higher carb diet may well choose potatoes, rice and high sugar fruits and pass up lower carb, nutrient dense foods like avocado, nuts, spinach, kale - that's their perogative.

That is the lamest reasons yet for a low carb diet. Many of the foods used in a ketosis diet are unnecessary for a healthy life. There are many different groups all over the world that eat different diets and do fine.

FACT: We don't need large amounts of protein in our diet and can get enough protein from plants.
FACT: We don't need any animal products in our foods for a healthy life.
FACT: We don't need to add fats to our foods.

Vegans on the average are probably much more healthy than almost any other group and they consist on a very high starch, low fat diet. This avoiding high carbs because they aren't needed is no different than saying avoid anything from animals because it simply isn't needed. Both are pretty lame reasons.

I never said those were reasons for a low carb diet. I said we can easily, and healthfully, choose other nutrient dense foods that are lower in carbs.

I eat a ketogenic diet because I have stubborn insulin resistance that did not respond to a 20% body weight loss, did not improve with regular exercise, and does badly with a higher carb diet. I also use it to treat a few autoimmune disorders and for a feeling of overall improved health. I did not switch to a ketogenic diet so that I would have the opportunity to switch from rice to spinach.

And I never said that people on other diets would not do fine.

Your "FACTS" are relatively true but have nothing to do with a ketogenic diet.

No, we don't need large amounts of protein. I agree. A ketogenic diet is low carb high fat diet. Not high protein. And I do know of vegetarians who follow a ketogenic diet. Vegetarianism and ketogenic diets aren't exclusive of each other.

So we don't need any animal products in our food for a healthy life? I disagree with that. Without supplementation, I doubt many vegans would stay healthy over the long term.

We don't need to add fats to our foods? I like adding fats to my food. Butter on steamed veggies or a steak is wonderful. Whipped cream in coffee is tasty. Melted cheese in a egg, veggie and ground beef casseole is excellent, and eggs cooked in bacon drippings are the best. Why would I not add fat to my foods? I see no problem there.

I still think that rice, potatoes, and high sugar fruit are not needed for good health. At all.

dykask wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

<snip>

I wouldn't try to claim that people in ketosis don't experience profound metabolic improvements. However that isn't an ketosis only advantage either as there are many diets and approaches that accomplish that goal. That is why I personally think it is something else like added sugars that's makes the difference. It could be something else too, but there has to be a reason why radically different diet approaches work.

I don't agree that there isn't anything different going on with ketosis but I absolutely believe that improved diet quality eating low carb is partly responsible for the good health some people experience and the improved health markers shown in studies. Christopher Gardner even listed diet quality as a potential confounding variable on his latest study.

When you take away these foods:

You're left with a ton of nutritious foods to choose from and not much else:

Increasing food quality alone can improve health but not as much as weight loss and exercise. But for optimal health, you should do all three.

My issue with your chart is limiting high sugar fruits, rice and things like potatoes. All of those are highly nutrient dense and only need to limited by those with IR or medical issues. Applying that to everyone is meaningless.

People don't need those specific sources of nutrient dense foods though. Those of us who are low carb choose other nurient dense food because they are lower carb. It is not being applied to everyone is the point here.

Rice hasn't been available to my north eastern European ancestors for more than a couple of hundred years. At most. We made due with other vegetables and meats. Rice is not bad but we don't need it.

Potatoes were thought of as food only fit for livestock until just over a couple hundred years ago. My ancestors did fine without it. Potatoes are not bad but we don't need them.

And we didn't have the high sugar fruits from the tropics. We don't need those either. Berries and some apples was probably the extent of it.

These foods you listed are not needed for good health. At all. There are so many nutritious options, that are low carb, that people on a low carb diet can choose instead. People on a higher carb diet may well choose potatoes, rice and high sugar fruits and pass up lower carb, nutrient dense foods like avocado, nuts, spinach, kale - that's their perogative.

That is the lamest reasons yet for a low carb diet. Many of the foods used in a ketosis diet are unnecessary for a healthy life. There are many different groups all over the world that eat different diets and do fine.

FACT: We don't need large amounts of protein in our diet and can get enough protein from plants.
FACT: We don't need any animal products in our foods for a healthy life.
FACT: We don't need to add fats to our foods.

Vegans on the average are probably much more healthy than almost any other group and they consist on a very high starch, low fat diet. This avoiding high carbs because they aren't needed is no different than saying avoid anything from animals because it simply isn't needed. Both are pretty lame reasons.

I never said those were reasons for a low carb diet. I said we can easily, and healthfully, choose other nutrient dense foods that are lower in carbs.

I eat a ketogenic diet because I have stubborn insulin resistance that did not respond to a 20% body weight loss, did not improve with regular exercise, and does badly with a higher carb diet. I also use it to treat a few autoimmune disorders and for a feeling of overall improved health. I did not switch to a ketogenic diet so that I would have the opportunity to switch from rice to spinach.

And I never said that people on other diets would not do fine.

Your "FACTS" are relatively true but have nothing to do with a ketogenic diet.

No, we don't need large amounts of protein. I agree. A ketogenic diet is low carb high fat diet. Not high protein. And I do know of vegetarians who follow a ketogenic diet. Vegetarianism and ketogenic diets aren't exclusive of each other.

So we don't need any animal products in our food for a healthy life? I disagree with that. Without supplementation, I doubt many vegans would stay healthy over the long term.

We don't need to add fats to our foods? I like adding fats to my food. Butter on steamed veggies or a steak is wonderful. Whipped cream in coffee is tasty. Melted cheese in a egg, veggie and ground beef casseole is excellent, and eggs cooked in bacon drippings are the best. Why would I not add fat to my foods? I see no problem there.

I still think that rice, potatoes, and high sugar fruit are not needed for good health. At all.

Most keto diets I've seen and the way people describe eating is very heavy on protein compared to the way most people eat. While that might not be a high protein diet by some standards it is all relative.

Rice, potatoes, other starches and fruits and the like are actually exteremly important for health on a global scale. The reason is that production of animal products is resource intensive and there really isn't enough resources with current technoglies in the world for everyone to have diets heavily based on animal products. The starches provide much needed energy and a good base for additions like fruits. As much as you like adding animal fats to your food, it isn't necessary for a healthy diet. My point is there isn't any single food that is necessary for a healthy diet. So arguments that rice and potatoes aren't necessary for health is really baseless.

Animal products are pretty common all over the world, but the amounts used vary widely. Still I think all the ketosis based diets I've seen use a lot of animal products. Which could be a major disadvantage to some people.

justinfarmer919 wrote: »

Keto is very simple. People make excuses and really are not serious about success. Got to ketogains.com and use there macro calculator. There are a million recipes for low carb lifestyle that are amazing!! The hardest thing about Keto is electrolyte/ sodium balance. You will really dry up.