Why do people insist that they need tons of fat for keto!
Replies
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
LOl Dr. Eades, get owned by Richard Nikoley and Duck Dodgers
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/10/comment-michael-doesnt.html
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/10/damned-inuit-diet.html0 -
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat..
Well that's completely wrong....it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains...
And yet that manages to be even more wrong, while simultaneosly contradicting the first claim....this increases metabolic rate.
And that's from Planet Pure Speculation.
I actually chortled loudly at work and with increasing volume at each line.
:laugh:
Well done.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Most of your fat calories should come from saturated fat.janejellyroll wrote: »Totally off topic, but LCHF is so hard when you're also a vegan xD
I rely on Earth Balance vegan butter to get my fat content up there.
Couldn't you also use, say, any plant oil? I'm vegan too and Earth Balance is a great substitute for butter. But I can't imagine using a lot of it each day.
And, like mamapeach910, I am trying to wrap my mind around how difficult this would be.
Okay, so coconut oil is vegan, yes?
Is this whole idea that most of the calories for this WOE be from saturated fat behind the coconut oil craze or at least part of what's behind the coconut oil craze?
I'm getting old, it's getting hard to keep up with all this nonsense.
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat, it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains, this increases metabolic rate. And also suppresses appetite.
"In summary, research conducted to date in animals shows that replacing dietary LCT by MCT causes a rise in EE, a depression of food intake and lower body fat mass. Similarly, in humans, MCT increase EE relative to LCT consumption. Fewer studies have examined the effects of MCT on satiety but, although results vary, these also suggest decreased food intake when LCT are replaced with MCT in the diet. Therefore, greater EE and lower food intake with MCT compared with LCT suggest that replacing dietary LCT with MCT could facilitate weight maintenance in humans. "
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/329.full
But that increase in metabolic rate weans off after a while of use (just like caffeine) does it not?
I use it sometimes because it tastes good in some things, but I feel the human studies are a bit scarce and small so I don't see myself moving to regular use since I love my olive oil too much to give it up for something that does not have strong evidence behind it.
Caffeine is different, it's a stimulant, it stimulates the adrenal glands. Which a tolerant can be built. This is why you need more caffeine for the same effect.
MCT is energy, it provides so much any, and it takes so much energy to oxidize it. This is thermodynamics.
I haven't dug deep before because the studies seemed a bit small and weak at first glance, but now I took a second look and indeed your body does adapt. And I thought I did read something of that nature.. now I remember.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/103484980 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Most of your fat calories should come from saturated fat.janejellyroll wrote: »Totally off topic, but LCHF is so hard when you're also a vegan xD
I rely on Earth Balance vegan butter to get my fat content up there.
Couldn't you also use, say, any plant oil? I'm vegan too and Earth Balance is a great substitute for butter. But I can't imagine using a lot of it each day.
And, like mamapeach910, I am trying to wrap my mind around how difficult this would be.
Okay, so coconut oil is vegan, yes?
Is this whole idea that most of the calories for this WOE be from saturated fat behind the coconut oil craze or at least part of what's behind the coconut oil craze?
I'm getting old, it's getting hard to keep up with all this nonsense.
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat, it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains, this increases metabolic rate. And also suppresses appetite.
"In summary, research conducted to date in animals shows that replacing dietary LCT by MCT causes a rise in EE, a depression of food intake and lower body fat mass. Similarly, in humans, MCT increase EE relative to LCT consumption. Fewer studies have examined the effects of MCT on satiety but, although results vary, these also suggest decreased food intake when LCT are replaced with MCT in the diet. Therefore, greater EE and lower food intake with MCT compared with LCT suggest that replacing dietary LCT with MCT could facilitate weight maintenance in humans. "
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/329.full
But that increase in metabolic rate weans off after a while of use (just like caffeine) does it not?
I use it sometimes because it tastes good in some things, but I feel the human studies are a bit scarce and small so I don't see myself moving to regular use since I love my olive oil too much to give it up for something that does not have strong evidence behind it.
Caffeine is different, it's a stimulant, it stimulates the adrenal glands. Which a tolerant can be built. This is why you need more caffeine for the same effect.
MCT is energy, it provides so much any, and it takes so much energy to oxidize it. This is thermodynamics.
I haven't dug deep before because the studies seemed a bit small and weak at first glance, but now I took a second look and indeed your body does adapt. And I thought I did read something of that nature.. now I remember.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10348498
For those who aren't going to click through...To examine the effect of consumption of medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) vs. long-chain triglycerides (LCT) on total energy expenditure...there was no effect of diet on TEF. There were no differences in BMR, TEF, or AIEE between diets when expressed as percentages of TEE.0 -
I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?0 -
I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?
I'm guessing because it's assumed sugar alcohols aren't like... digested... or.. something?0 -
Because 20-10 = 3 in Magic Atkins-land
But yea, I think they don't count "sugar alcohols" either.0 -
Effing marketers, that's crazy talk. Fibre doesn't pass through unmolested, unless you have Montezuma's revenge, and sugar alcohols don't come with dietary equivalent of a Romulan cloaking device.
I wouldn't count that as less than 10g of carbs.
0 -
Effing marketers, that's crazy talk. Fibre doesn't pass through unmolested, unless you have Montezuma's revenge, and sugar alcohols don't come with dietary equivalent of a Romulan cloaking device.
I wouldn't count that as less than 10g of carbs.
I wouldn't either. Luckily I love carbs. These really are tasty.
That's interesting though cause Pure Protein bars use sugar alcohols so all this time, they have been the same net carbs as a Quest bar? Or are some of the ingredients (carbs) in Quest bars (erithrotol for example) not counted towards carb counts as well?
I know I'm veering off, but whatever, this thread is all over the place.
0 -
I don't know about that - I see a difference between making pork rind nachos (which are awesome, btw) and eating a stick of butter. And I can honestly say, after 15 years, I have never once been even tempted to eat a stick of butter. That may be because my plan was set up by an RD long before there were keto blogs on the net, so nobody ever gave me the unfortunate misinformation that you should eat all your fat grams instead of considering them an upper limit.0 -
I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?
I'm guessing because it's assumed sugar alcohols aren't like... digested... or.. something?
But that makes no sense because if you do the math... 9g of fat: 81 calories; 15 g of protein: 60 calories. So that's 141 calories. Total calories? 180.
That leaves 39 calories, roughly 10 grams of carb calories worth. So how can you be counting the calories from the carbs but not the carbs themselves?
This is my problem with ALL "net carbs" claims.
I pulled a link a while ago from some government website. It only said something about insoluble fiber not being included in calorie counts. Soluble fiber is digested. Shouldn't those carbs count for carb counting people?
0 -
People should count "total carbs" not net carbs. Well that's the direction all this stuff is going anyways.
I was reading a post about a type 1 diabetic who consumed 1g of net carb, his blood glucose went up to 300mg/dl. which equated his response to about 30g of carbs, this was determined by how much insulin he had to take.
That's because diabetics have a system for fiber and sugar alcohols (count fiber if less than 5, count half if more than 5, count half sugar alcohols and round up if there are fractions). It was pretty irresponsible for him to deviate from these rules.. The bar above would be 10 diabetic carbs.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
This is the bit I always wonder about. I've read that constipation isn't an issue for them because of the fat content of their diet, so I'm guessing they don't care about fiber that much? But the vitamins and minerals from veggies are a head scratcher.
Veggies don't seem to count for people who do low carb. At least from what I've seen when people talk about being low carb and focusing on eating lots of veggies instead of carbs lol.
Isn't that where "net" carbs come in?
My daily net carbs are below 22g. My daily total carbs are below 35g, and rarely are they even close to that high. I'm in ketosis whether you want to count the fiber (which is a US only phenomenon), or not count the fiber, which is how the rest of the world does it. The majority of my carbs come from fruit, veg, and yogurt, with the odd one or two from chocolate.
I think some people get this idea that by deducting the fiber, someone is drastically reducing their carb count artificially. Even if I had a full 35g, that's only 52 calories of fiber, estimate at least half of which is insoluble. That's less than the margin of error for the day from using USDA numbers on my scale measurements. And, those 52 calories are still included in my calorie count for the day. The only purpose for excluding them is calculating the line for staying in ketosis (or for diabetics, calculating how much protein and fat they should be including in their meal to offset a spike).0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »People should count "total carbs" not net carbs. Well that's the direction all this stuff is going anyways.
I was reading a post about a type 1 diabetic who consumed 1g of net carb, his blood glucose went up to 300mg/dl. which equated his response to about 30g of carbs, this was determined by how much insulin he had to take.
That's because diabetics have a system for fiber and sugar alcohols (count fiber if less than 5, count half if more than 5, count half sugar alcohols and round up if there are fractions). It was pretty irresponsible for him to deviate from these rules.. The bar above would be 10 diabetic carbs.mamapeach910 wrote: »I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?
I'm guessing because it's assumed sugar alcohols aren't like... digested... or.. something?
But that makes no sense because if you do the math... 9g of fat: 81 calories; 15 g of protein: 60 calories. So that's 141 calories. Total calories? 180.
That leaves 39 calories, roughly 10 grams of carb calories worth. So how can you be counting the calories from the carbs but not the carbs themselves?
This is my problem with ALL "net carbs" claims.
I pulled a link a while ago from some government website. It only said something about insoluble fiber not being included in calorie counts. Soluble fiber is digested. Shouldn't those carbs count for carb counting people?
I thought they might act like ethanol(alcohol) in the body which would be 7 calories per gram, but no. It does get digested 1.5-3 calories per gram.
Okay, so let's see, we have 1g of sugar plus the 2g of plain carbs not accounted for in the breakdown, so that's 12 of our 39 calories, leaving 27. Presuming none of the sugar alcohols have calories, the fiber is being calculated to have 2.7 calories per gram? Or a portion of the fiber is soluble and calculated at an unknown rate and a portion of the fiber is insoluble and not counted?
I wish there were a more accurate breakdown.
0 -
Effing marketers, that's crazy talk. Fibre doesn't pass through unmolested, unless you have Montezuma's revenge, and sugar alcohols don't come with dietary equivalent of a Romulan cloaking device.
I wouldn't count that as less than 10g of carbs.
I wouldn't either. Luckily I love carbs. These really are tasty.
That's interesting though cause Pure Protein bars use sugar alcohols so all this time, they have been the same net carbs as a Quest bar? Or are some of the ingredients (carbs) in Quest bars (erithrotol for example) not counted towards carb counts as well?
I know I'm veering off, but whatever, this thread is all over the place.
Sugar alcohols are metabolized differently, and they're a minefield for diabetics because of it. For example, some flavors of Quest bars will cause sugar spikes, while other flavors don't, and the difference lies in which type of polyols they use.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/NRR/NRR16_02/S0954422403000131a.pdf&code=ca317e1a015aa46a00828a47df4801460 -
280g of protein is a lot don't you think? How many pounds of meat would that be? I don't think it's settled science at all and there's other accounts of the Inuit diet. I think Eades posts on the subject have merit. He's certainly well read on the subject and I think he's credible.AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Only in marketing material. The science is rock solid. An early reference (from 1928 Journal of Biological Chemistry...)...the average daily food partition is about 280 gm. of protein, 135 gm. of fat, and 54 gm. of carbohydrate
of which the bulk is derived from the glycogen of the meat eaten.
Way to much protein for ketosis.
"Also, as I’ve mentioned in these comments ad infinitum, caribou meat is lean, but, again, according to Stef, the Inuit gave most of the cuts we modern folk like to the dogs and went themselves for the fatty parts. We modern folk like younger animals for eating more than we like older animals because the muscle of the younger ones are more tender whereas those of the older are tougher. The Inuit we just the opposite. They preferred the older animals because, like with humans, older animals had more fat than younger ones, and, since they didn’t eat a lot of the muscle meat, they weren’t as concerned about the toughness.
To quote Stefansson on page 27 of The Fat of the Land:
Hunting man is a connoisseur of fats, and has a definite sequence of preferences in the different fats according to their origination in different parts of the body. The marrows are the best, and range in excellence from the hip and shoulder joints down – the further down the better. The marrow of humerus and femur is hard and tallowy at “room temperatures,” harder at the upper end. These bones are sometimes broken and the marrow eaten raw; but usually the bone, with what remains on it after the dog meat has been peeled off, is boiled and the cooked marrow is eaten warm.
Passing down the leg the marrow is softer and softer, more and more like a particularly delicious cream in flavor, and is in each bone softer at the lower end than at the upper, so that if one is given a small piece in the dark he can tell, by the feel when he crushes it with his tongue against his palate, and by the taste, from which bone it is and from which end of that bone.
He also wrote a couple of pages later in the same book re the caribou back fat:
The slab of back fat is thickest a little in front of the roots of the tail and goes down about halfway to the hock joint, thinning rapidly. Forward it extends well out along the neck, thinning gradually from the hips forward. On the sides it goes a third of the way down over the ribs. When a caribou is killed and the back fat is peeled off and laid out on the grass or snow to harden. As Dr. Anderson says, it may run to fifty pounds on a bull that dresses 250-300 pounds. The slab is thinner the younger the animal, and for the same age is thinner with females than males.
This is just to show there is more to caribou than the lean meat, which the Inuit didn’t particularly like."0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »People should count "total carbs" not net carbs. Well that's the direction all this stuff is going anyways.
I was reading a post about a type 1 diabetic who consumed 1g of net carb, his blood glucose went up to 300mg/dl. which equated his response to about 30g of carbs, this was determined by how much insulin he had to take.
That's because diabetics have a system for fiber and sugar alcohols (count fiber if less than 5, count half if more than 5, count half sugar alcohols and round up if there are fractions). It was pretty irresponsible for him to deviate from these rules.. The bar above would be 10 diabetic carbs.mamapeach910 wrote: »I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?
I'm guessing because it's assumed sugar alcohols aren't like... digested... or.. something?
But that makes no sense because if you do the math... 9g of fat: 81 calories; 15 g of protein: 60 calories. So that's 141 calories. Total calories? 180.
That leaves 39 calories, roughly 10 grams of carb calories worth. So how can you be counting the calories from the carbs but not the carbs themselves?
This is my problem with ALL "net carbs" claims.
I pulled a link a while ago from some government website. It only said something about insoluble fiber not being included in calorie counts. Soluble fiber is digested. Shouldn't those carbs count for carb counting people?
I thought they might act like ethanol(alcohol) in the body which would be 7 calories per gram, but no. It does get digested 1.5-3 calories per gram.
Okay, so let's see, we have 1g of sugar plus the 2g of plain carbs not accounted for in the breakdown, so that's 12 of our 39 calories, leaving 27. Presuming none of the sugar alcohols have calories, the fiber is being calculated to have 2.7 calories per gram? Or a portion of the fiber is soluble and calculated at an unknown rate and a portion of the fiber is insoluble and not counted?
I wish there were a more accurate breakdown.
Ah I did not notice the 2 missing carbs. Most likely the 2 carbs are starch since it says "3 net carbs". In this case it would mean 12 carbs for diabetics.0 -
Don't mind me, but now I really want to write mystery novel subtitled the Case of the Missing Carbs.0
-
LCHF is a life saver and the only way I can lose weight. I do not count calories. I eat as much as I want of the good stuff and it works!0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
280g of protein is a lot don't you think? How many pounds of meat would that be?AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Only in marketing material. The science is rock solid. An early reference (from 1928 Journal of Biological Chemistry...)...the average daily food partition is about 280 gm. of protein, 135 gm. of fat, and 54 gm. of carbohydrate
of which the bulk is derived from the glycogen of the meat eaten.
Way to much protein for ketosis.
About 3.0 -
For now. Without any knowledge of your caloric intake and your maintenance needs, you run the risk of being unable to reach your final goal and run the risk of regaining by not being aware of how many calories your volume of food represents. And especially if you don't plan on staying LCHF for the rest of your life, you could easily regain the weight back if you don't take steps to actually be aware of your caloric intake.lowcarber87 wrote: »LCHF is a life saver and the only way I can lose weight. I do not count calories. I eat as much as I want of the good stuff and it works!
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Didn't it start as an Atkins thing? I've always associated with low carb diets.............
Carbs - fiber = net carbs
yes, in America Atkins does that, and also subtracts sugar alcohols to get at the digestible carbohydrate content.
Strictly it's "Total carbohydrate - fiber" and US "Total carbohydrate" includes the fiber, so it make sense. Many places not in N America analyse "Carbohydrate" and report that on labels without including fibre, so there's nothing to subtract (apart from the debatable sugar alcohols).
0 -
-
People should count "total carbs" not net carbs. Well that's the direction all this stuff is going anyways.
I was reading a post about a type 1 diabetic who consumed 1g of net carb, his blood glucose went up to 300mg/dl. which equated his response to about 30g of carbs, this was determined by how much insulin he had to take.
Let's guess at 5 litres of blood, and it went up from 100 to 300 mg/dl. That's 10 grams of glucose. So we would need to know what else he ate - bearing in mind that BG goes up on its own in Type 1 diabetes and other stuff.
0 -
Totally ate over 100g of fat today, but it wasn't deliberate. Just a convenient way to soak up exercise cals without having to eat a ridiculous amount of food for dinner. Checking my micros for the day they actually look surprisingly good!0
-
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat..
Well that's completely wrong....it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains...
And yet that manages to be even more wrong, while simultaneosly contradicting the first claim....this increases metabolic rate.
And that's from Planet Pure Speculation.
Par for the course.
0 -
0
-
Also regardless if the Inuits had a keto diet, my point is that there is genetic variability and keto diet isn't necessarily for everyone.
So are you saying some groups evolved to respond well to a ketogenic diet and others did not? But you have no idea about who might be in each group?
Why not just est a varied diet and avoid the risk that I am not one descended from those who adapted to tolerate it?
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Also regardless if the Inuits had a keto diet, my point is that there is genetic variability and keto diet isn't necessarily for everyone.
So are you saying some groups evolved to respond well to a ketogenic diet and others did not? But you have no idea about who might be in each group?
Why not just est a varied diet and avoid the risk that I am not one descended from those who adapted to tolerate it?
Whats even funnier is Inuits are typically chubby and age very rapidly, looking haggard at the early age of 30. Even if Inuits were ketogenic, they are the ONLY one these people can find. We have modern H-G tribes that subsist almost entirely on carbs. Ewe tribe, Turkisentas, Kitavans etc0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Also regardless if the Inuits had a keto diet, my point is that there is genetic variability and keto diet isn't necessarily for everyone.
So are you saying some groups evolved to respond well to a ketogenic diet and others did not? But you have no idea about who might be in each group?
Why not just est a varied diet and avoid the risk that I am not one descended from those who adapted to tolerate it?
Asking from a point of pure ignorance here, so forgive me...
I have to wonder, given how much of a melting pot of mongrels most of us are as far as ancestry is concerned, how can any of us know we are of a group evolved to respond well to a ketogenic diet? Is this trait dominant or recessive when mixed with a group who doesn't respond well to it?
Or am I not thinking about all of this properly?
Or is this whole groups responding to ketogenic diets thing as nonsensical as it sounds?
Again, pleading a position of total ignorance on the matter. Forgive any obvious displays of it in this post.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions