Disadvantages of Keto diet
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser 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.0 -
The disadvantage for me was that it wasn't something I could do for a lifetime as any lifestyle change should be so when I stopped keto the weight I lost doing it quickly returned.
For me I didn't have any better or faster weight loss results than I do calorie counting and prefer not to restrict a whole food group from my diet.3 -
Are there any disadvantages of Keto diet? Please be honest. I am really interested but I would like to make sure everything is safe before a change of lifestyle.
Main disadvantage for me: I found it incredibly hard to sustain for even a month. Just eating what I choose within my calorie goals is far, far easier and I've been much more successful at doing so for almost a year now.
I don't think it's bad, just completely unnecessary for me. If it works for you, awesome, there are many who do well on it, but for me, it's all about the path of least resistance that still gets me to my goals, and keto isn't it.4 -
Keto takes effort, and that might be a disadvantage for some people.
Keto is great, and just like a lot of eating style it requires a little discipline with food choices. Some people eat keto for inflammation control, some people to help control T1 & T2 diabetes and some people simply feel better and less bloaty when doing keto.
I love keto because I am aware that rice, oatmeal and bread do not fill me up. They trigger dopamine without any satiety at all. I could eat pasta and bread forever. I am not missing out on anything, it just takes a little more effort with different ingredients. I eat low-carb versions of bread, pizza, donuts and bagels, noodles and biscuits, cookies and cheesecake.
When people say it "lacks balance" I take it to mean they think I live off butter and steak (which while awesome, I most certainly do not do) without acknowledging the successful people or going off a single anecdote.
Keto doesn't need to work for everyone for it to work for you, if you want to fiddle around with it I would try at least a 30 day challenge to allow room for you to play with ingredients and recipes.
4 -
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.0
-
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.
Couldn't disagree with you more. I could never keto and I am extremely dedicated and educated. Some people, just don't do well on low carb/keto diets.
If you want to know how it probably feels, go onto a raw vegan diet and see if you last? It's probably the complete opposite of keto.5 -
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.
To me, it was anything but simple. Almost everything has carbs so I needed to plan accordingly with extreme micromanaging because anything can knock you out of ketosis if you are not careful, I needed to make sure my electrolytes were in check, I needed to make sure my protein wasn't high enough to knock me out of ketosis, I needed to plan around social situations, I needed to go to extreme lengths to feel even the slightest bit not hungry like swallowing expensive rubbery shirataki noodles, I needed to keep my fat high enough going out of my way to find things that I would normally eat (most of my preferences have carbs). To me, it was extremely stressful, complicated and error prone.
Now simply counting my calories has lead to more than 90 lbs of weight loss with the most flexible diet that caters to my preferences without having to micromanage or do things way far off the beaten path for me. Does taking a route that feels easier for me mean I'm not serious? I beg to differ. More than 90 lbs lost says otherwise.8 -
OK!0
-
I've been doing Primal blueprint for 3 months, never felt better, the wife aswell, lost all her baby weight (50lbs) plus another 20, just by eating properly. No headaches, no issues, I have been in and out of ketosis, the only hard part for me is staying in ketosis and not deterring from my program0
-
If you have a sweet tooth, it can be rough. I've given up my nightly 6-quart popcorn bowl and big-bag-of-chips-at-a-time habits. I miss my popcorn and IPA (sometimes terribly). But, I went from 400 to 170 pounds in just over a year-and-a-half. So the results speak for themselves and make the sacrifices worth it.
Now, I am no longer even checking the Keto strips. I am eating low carb and tracking everything. I end up between 20-50g of carbs daily, ending up with 10-30 net carbs. I am feeling better than I ever have, and am actually below what I weighed in highschool.
You asked about disadvantages.... 1 - this is HUGE. See your doctor and/or a Registered Dietitian before changing your diet. 2 - Some folks have commented that eating out is hard. I don't know where they are eating out, but it is super easy. Any real restaurant will do a lettuce wrap for burgers or skip the sauces. The biggest eating-out challenges are: Sushi (eat sashimi), Mexican (fajitas without tortillas or bring ONE low-carb tortilla from home), Chinese (OMG, Crispy Duck, fried string beans [I know, I know], veggies and more veggies).
I also LOVE LOVE LOVE El Pollo Loco. Many low-carb choices. Any burger or grilled chicken sandwich from any fast-food place (of course, no bun, BBQ, Ketchup, sweet sauces). It is not difficult at ALL to eat out and be in ketosis.
A big disadvantage I have is family support. At first, I got not a lot. They think I was crazy. And groceries do get a bit possessive around here. If they get to my cheese.....or my salami.....
But over all, I can't really think of anything other than the initial difficult first couple-to-few weeks, and also check with a professional if you are healthy enough first.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
Did you read your post?I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me.
Calorie counting does not require low fat foods.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
Did you read your post?I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me.
Calorie counting does not require low fat foods.
Dude - you're arguing something where there's no argument. Sheesh. "I". See that? for "me" to eat foods "not satisfying to me" - all these replies are based on one's own experience, and are "opinions" - nobody's a doctor here as far as I know. "For me", "I" would have to count calories.
Nobody has to do anything. Some things work better for some than others, and some will take different paths on their journey. Above is mine. Thank GOD there are not a world full of me's - we are all different and that's what makes the world go 'round.
In the end, it's simple math. Eat less than you burn. A lot of ways to do that.
Low carb? Low fat? Count? Don't count? I don't give a flying F. Just stop picking fights where there's not one to be picked.
3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.2 -
Well that escalated quickly.2
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
3 -
You're thinking about this all wrong, Ric. Eat what you're eating now. Just count/log it. That's it.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions