Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is There a Metabolic Advantage to a Ketogenic Diet?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway
. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »You've clearly not paid attention to all of the people swearing by a 5/20/75 macro split. Ugh...just, how is that even possible without literally eating butter wrapped in cheese?
I'm most of the way there and I've only just eaten breakfast (although I'm going for 5/25/70). It's not that difficult.
Oh, I am aware. I was keto for years when going from 265 to 150. I was just never able to hit the higher echelons of fat intake, and usually ended up with more of a 5/40/55 split, and even that required large amounts of mascarpone to hit. I always tended more toward the "mostly meat with some spinach and asparagus" route though, so ribs and chicken wings were about the highest fat per kcal value things I could be bothered with. Tried the BPC thing, but couldn't take it for more than a couple of weeks.
265 to 150...that's very awesome! I struggle with keeping my protein down. It's easy to increase your fat. Go with savory cooking. Use healthy fats like olive oil, coconut oil, butter and full-fat cheeses. My target is 5/30/65. But I run a little higher on carbs and protein. If you are obese, I don't think adding extra fat to reach your ratios is a good idea. You have plenty of fat in you already! I tried that for a while. It was too much and I didn't lose. But I didn't gain either.
Also, people say the don't like keto because it cuts out foods. Obese people trying to lose weight will have to give up something. So it's either low carb or low calorie.
No, it's lower calorie regardless. You can lower the calories by mostly cutting carbs, mostly cutting fat, mostly cutting everything, or--what a lot of us do--mostly cutting carbs and fats depending on what seems most easily removed without being missed, and maybe increasing some other things that are lower cal (like veg, leaner cuts of meat, plainer versions of carbs if you like them, fruit instead of a lot of sweets, if that's an issue).For me personally, I could take or leave the things you drop on low carb like processed foods, breads, cake, ice cream, pasta, and potatoes. The beer was tough, though!
Oh, wait. Isn't that the same stuff people restrict on low calorie? Yes, but the also cut out fats as well.
Well, no, I cut down on fats, sure -- instead of using a bunch of butter or olive oil I learned things taste as good with just a spritz. I eat less ice cream and pay attention to my servings of pasta (and eat more sauce but don't include as much cheese or fat as I used to -- taste even better than it did and just as satisfying). I didn't overeat potatoes before and probably eat them as much now, but mainly as plain roasted potatoes -- I wasn't a chip person and save fries for special occasions, but it's the fat that makes those high cal. I tend to like potatoes best without a bunch of added calories -- mixing them with meat is enough flavor if you want more than them on their own.
I never ate much cake and don't drink beer, I did realize that I ate rice and bread often just because it was there even though I don't care about either, so I cut way down on those, and beats me what you mean by processed foods -- major processed foods I eat are pasta (covered), cottage cheese/plain greek yogurt (helpful in meeting protein needs and I probably eat more of it than I did and love it), smoked salmon (would be perfectly fine on a low carb diet, and I haven't cut down on it either), cheese and butter (I do eat less of both but haven't cut them out), olive and coconut oil (I eat less of both but haven't cut them out), tofu/tempeh/occasional protein powder -- not sure why you'd need to cut them on a low carb diet, dried and canned beans/lentils (these would have to be cut on low carb, but they probably weren't a major thing that was overeaten for most).One equals happy and satisfied and the other equals grumpy and sacrificing.
Yes, I do think one should pick the things one is least likely to miss, either for taste or nutritional reasons. Seems like good common sense. Since my weakness IS more fat than carbs (like I said, a lot of plain starches like bread and rice don't call my name, I like some sweet things, but not nearly as much as some here seem to, and I've always hated cold cereal, among other things), when I do this I cut both fat and carbs (which I'd overuse in both cases when eating mindlessly) and end up with a moderate carb diet (lower carb if calories were lower). But that's without aiming for any particular carb number or feeling like I have to cut out carbs I really enjoy like pasta (as part of a healthy, balanced dinner), potatoes and sweet potatoes, lentils, fruit, oats, or sure cottage cheese and ice cream, the occasional cookie or piece of pie. It also means I can include steak, chicken on the bone with skin, cheese, ice cream, cookies, etc., olive oil, butter, and other higher fat things, and never have to worry that the vegetables I eat have too many carbs if I eat as much as I want. It's about personal preference.
Of course anyone not eating mindlessly probably does have to make choices between foods, but that doesn't mean a diet is restrictive or unsatisfying -- I think mine is more enjoyable when eating mindfully, since I make more careful choices with my calories and don't eat things just because they are there or add too much of something because I'm not thinking.
24 thousand posts. Impressive! Each to his own. Keto has a big metabolic advantage for Type2 diabetics and people with metabolic syndrome and the super obese. There are a lot of misconceptions about keto and low carb. The experts I follow recommend eating as many vegetables as you want. We don't restrict that other than starchy stuff. I've lost 53 pounds in 4 months. This seems pretty magical to me. I'm old and I have either been on the way up or the way down since my 30's. I've reached my ideal weight 4 times only to gain it back plus some each time. Sad, I know. I see keto as a good solution for people who like to eat and have had trouble with their weight. It's sustainable for a lifetime.
LCHF and Keto are definitely benefcial for those who are diabetic or have some sort of insulin resistance. But these lifestyles are only beneficial for those with those conditions, those who are satiated by fat, or those who don't require huge volumes of foods. Since fats have a lot more calories, it's significantly less volume.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »You've clearly not paid attention to all of the people swearing by a 5/20/75 macro split. Ugh...just, how is that even possible without literally eating butter wrapped in cheese?
I'm most of the way there and I've only just eaten breakfast (although I'm going for 5/25/70). It's not that difficult.
Oh, I am aware. I was keto for years when going from 265 to 150. I was just never able to hit the higher echelons of fat intake, and usually ended up with more of a 5/40/55 split, and even that required large amounts of mascarpone to hit. I always tended more toward the "mostly meat with some spinach and asparagus" route though, so ribs and chicken wings were about the highest fat per kcal value things I could be bothered with. Tried the BPC thing, but couldn't take it for more than a couple of weeks.
265 to 150...that's very awesome! I struggle with keeping my protein down. It's easy to increase your fat. Go with savory cooking. Use healthy fats like olive oil, coconut oil, butter and full-fat cheeses. My target is 5/30/65. But I run a little higher on carbs and protein. If you are obese, I don't think adding extra fat to reach your ratios is a good idea. You have plenty of fat in you already! I tried that for a while. It was too much and I didn't lose. But I didn't gain either.
Also, people say the don't like keto because it cuts out foods. Obese people trying to lose weight will have to give up something. So it's either low carb or low calorie.
No, it's lower calorie regardless. You can lower the calories by mostly cutting carbs, mostly cutting fat, mostly cutting everything, or--what a lot of us do--mostly cutting carbs and fats depending on what seems most easily removed without being missed, and maybe increasing some other things that are lower cal (like veg, leaner cuts of meat, plainer versions of carbs if you like them, fruit instead of a lot of sweets, if that's an issue).For me personally, I could take or leave the things you drop on low carb like processed foods, breads, cake, ice cream, pasta, and potatoes. The beer was tough, though!
Oh, wait. Isn't that the same stuff people restrict on low calorie? Yes, but the also cut out fats as well.
Well, no, I cut down on fats, sure -- instead of using a bunch of butter or olive oil I learned things taste as good with just a spritz. I eat less ice cream and pay attention to my servings of pasta (and eat more sauce but don't include as much cheese or fat as I used to -- taste even better than it did and just as satisfying). I didn't overeat potatoes before and probably eat them as much now, but mainly as plain roasted potatoes -- I wasn't a chip person and save fries for special occasions, but it's the fat that makes those high cal. I tend to like potatoes best without a bunch of added calories -- mixing them with meat is enough flavor if you want more than them on their own.
I never ate much cake and don't drink beer, I did realize that I ate rice and bread often just because it was there even though I don't care about either, so I cut way down on those, and beats me what you mean by processed foods -- major processed foods I eat are pasta (covered), cottage cheese/plain greek yogurt (helpful in meeting protein needs and I probably eat more of it than I did and love it), smoked salmon (would be perfectly fine on a low carb diet, and I haven't cut down on it either), cheese and butter (I do eat less of both but haven't cut them out), olive and coconut oil (I eat less of both but haven't cut them out), tofu/tempeh/occasional protein powder -- not sure why you'd need to cut them on a low carb diet, dried and canned beans/lentils (these would have to be cut on low carb, but they probably weren't a major thing that was overeaten for most).One equals happy and satisfied and the other equals grumpy and sacrificing.
Yes, I do think one should pick the things one is least likely to miss, either for taste or nutritional reasons. Seems like good common sense. Since my weakness IS more fat than carbs (like I said, a lot of plain starches like bread and rice don't call my name, I like some sweet things, but not nearly as much as some here seem to, and I've always hated cold cereal, among other things), when I do this I cut both fat and carbs (which I'd overuse in both cases when eating mindlessly) and end up with a moderate carb diet (lower carb if calories were lower). But that's without aiming for any particular carb number or feeling like I have to cut out carbs I really enjoy like pasta (as part of a healthy, balanced dinner), potatoes and sweet potatoes, lentils, fruit, oats, or sure cottage cheese and ice cream, the occasional cookie or piece of pie. It also means I can include steak, chicken on the bone with skin, cheese, ice cream, cookies, etc., olive oil, butter, and other higher fat things, and never have to worry that the vegetables I eat have too many carbs if I eat as much as I want. It's about personal preference.
Of course anyone not eating mindlessly probably does have to make choices between foods, but that doesn't mean a diet is restrictive or unsatisfying -- I think mine is more enjoyable when eating mindfully, since I make more careful choices with my calories and don't eat things just because they are there or add too much of something because I'm not thinking.
24 thousand posts. Impressive! Each to his own. Keto has a big metabolic advantage for Type2 diabetics and people with metabolic syndrome and the super obese. There are a lot of misconceptions about keto and low carb. The experts I follow recommend eating as many vegetables as you want. We don't restrict that other than starchy stuff. I've lost 53 pounds in 4 months. This seems pretty magical to me. I'm old and I have either been on the way up or the way down since my 30's. I've reached my ideal weight 4 times only to gain it back plus some each time. Sad, I know. I see keto as a good solution for people who like to eat and have had trouble with their weight. It's sustainable for a lifetime.
For you. Not for me it wouldn't be. I find starches filling and have had no problem losing weight. I have been keto for short periods a couple of times and the losses were in line with my deficit as they always are.
And as above, citing those with metabolic complications that lower carb helps is not something translated to the entire population.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »You've clearly not paid attention to all of the people swearing by a 5/20/75 macro split. Ugh...just, how is that even possible without literally eating butter wrapped in cheese?
I'm most of the way there and I've only just eaten breakfast (although I'm going for 5/25/70). It's not that difficult.
Oh, I am aware. I was keto for years when going from 265 to 150. I was just never able to hit the higher echelons of fat intake, and usually ended up with more of a 5/40/55 split, and even that required large amounts of mascarpone to hit. I always tended more toward the "mostly meat with some spinach and asparagus" route though, so ribs and chicken wings were about the highest fat per kcal value things I could be bothered with. Tried the BPC thing, but couldn't take it for more than a couple of weeks.
265 to 150...that's very awesome! I struggle with keeping my protein down. It's easy to increase your fat. Go with savory cooking. Use healthy fats like olive oil, coconut oil, butter and full-fat cheeses. My target is 5/30/65. But I run a little higher on carbs and protein. If you are obese, I don't think adding extra fat to reach your ratios is a good idea. You have plenty of fat in you already! I tried that for a while. It was too much and I didn't lose. But I didn't gain either.
Also, people say the don't like keto because it cuts out foods. Obese people trying to lose weight will have to give up something. So it's either low carb or low calorie.
No, it's lower calorie regardless. You can lower the calories by mostly cutting carbs, mostly cutting fat, mostly cutting everything, or--what a lot of us do--mostly cutting carbs and fats depending on what seems most easily removed without being missed, and maybe increasing some other things that are lower cal (like veg, leaner cuts of meat, plainer versions of carbs if you like them, fruit instead of a lot of sweets, if that's an issue).For me personally, I could take or leave the things you drop on low carb like processed foods, breads, cake, ice cream, pasta, and potatoes. The beer was tough, though!
Oh, wait. Isn't that the same stuff people restrict on low calorie? Yes, but the also cut out fats as well.
Well, no, I cut down on fats, sure -- instead of using a bunch of butter or olive oil I learned things taste as good with just a spritz. I eat less ice cream and pay attention to my servings of pasta (and eat more sauce but don't include as much cheese or fat as I used to -- taste even better than it did and just as satisfying). I didn't overeat potatoes before and probably eat them as much now, but mainly as plain roasted potatoes -- I wasn't a chip person and save fries for special occasions, but it's the fat that makes those high cal. I tend to like potatoes best without a bunch of added calories -- mixing them with meat is enough flavor if you want more than them on their own.
I never ate much cake and don't drink beer, I did realize that I ate rice and bread often just because it was there even though I don't care about either, so I cut way down on those, and beats me what you mean by processed foods -- major processed foods I eat are pasta (covered), cottage cheese/plain greek yogurt (helpful in meeting protein needs and I probably eat more of it than I did and love it), smoked salmon (would be perfectly fine on a low carb diet, and I haven't cut down on it either), cheese and butter (I do eat less of both but haven't cut them out), olive and coconut oil (I eat less of both but haven't cut them out), tofu/tempeh/occasional protein powder -- not sure why you'd need to cut them on a low carb diet, dried and canned beans/lentils (these would have to be cut on low carb, but they probably weren't a major thing that was overeaten for most).One equals happy and satisfied and the other equals grumpy and sacrificing.
Yes, I do think one should pick the things one is least likely to miss, either for taste or nutritional reasons. Seems like good common sense. Since my weakness IS more fat than carbs (like I said, a lot of plain starches like bread and rice don't call my name, I like some sweet things, but not nearly as much as some here seem to, and I've always hated cold cereal, among other things), when I do this I cut both fat and carbs (which I'd overuse in both cases when eating mindlessly) and end up with a moderate carb diet (lower carb if calories were lower). But that's without aiming for any particular carb number or feeling like I have to cut out carbs I really enjoy like pasta (as part of a healthy, balanced dinner), potatoes and sweet potatoes, lentils, fruit, oats, or sure cottage cheese and ice cream, the occasional cookie or piece of pie. It also means I can include steak, chicken on the bone with skin, cheese, ice cream, cookies, etc., olive oil, butter, and other higher fat things, and never have to worry that the vegetables I eat have too many carbs if I eat as much as I want. It's about personal preference.
Of course anyone not eating mindlessly probably does have to make choices between foods, but that doesn't mean a diet is restrictive or unsatisfying -- I think mine is more enjoyable when eating mindfully, since I make more careful choices with my calories and don't eat things just because they are there or add too much of something because I'm not thinking.
24 thousand posts. Impressive! Each to his own. Keto has a big metabolic advantage for Type2 diabetics and people with metabolic syndrome and the super obese. There are a lot of misconceptions about keto and low carb. The experts I follow recommend eating as many vegetables as you want. We don't restrict that other than starchy stuff. I've lost 53 pounds in 4 months. This seems pretty magical to me. I'm old and I have either been on the way up or the way down since my 30's. I've reached my ideal weight 4 times only to gain it back plus some each time. Sad, I know. I see keto as a good solution for people who like to eat and have had trouble with their weight. It's sustainable for a lifetime.
LCHF and Keto are definitely benefcial for those who are diabetic or have some sort of insulin resistance. But these lifestyles are only beneficial for those with those conditions, those who are satiated by fat, or those who don't require huge volumes of foods. Since fats have a lot more calories, it's significantly less volume.
Yes, the studies show that there is SOME advantage for those who are IR, and, on the contrary, some advantage to LOW FAT for those who are IS. My view is that that advantage is going to be outweighed if you don't like that way of eating as well. For example, I am IS, but find that I do better on moderate fat and moderate carbs, since I enjoy my diet more that way and tend to be less tempted by high cal low nutrient things I prefer to eat rarely. That I might lose a bit more quickly on low fat makes no difference.
Like I said before, I don't at all deny that low carb/keto works and may be easier (due mostly to personal preference) for some or more enjoyable for some. What I find objectionable are the claims (illustrated above with the statement that keto is sustainable for a lifetime, as if that were a contrast to other ways of eating, and that other forms of eating that lead to weight loss and maintenance are not).
It's also not true that just because someone is obese you should assume they are likely to do best on IR (you weren't saying that, of course). There's a good study I've been linking recently (I think I did earlier in this thread) where they took obese participants, divided them into the more IR half and more IS half, and tested them on low carb and low fat. The more IS people did worse on low carb and better on low fat, and the more IR half did the opposite.
But again, this would mean I should be on a low fat diet, and yet I lost fine doing lower or moderate carb, whereas many other posters who prefer/feel less hungry eating higher carb have done so successfully, even when they started IR (many, of course, are only IR because they are obese (in addition to genetic predisposition, of course), and when the weight issue is taken care of (and often when they add exercise) they are IS).1 -
Short answer: No. Long term, the opposite is most likely the case.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
intentionally deceptive?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
That's something that someone had specially made, or they don't understand beef numbers and pulled something out of their butt. Now, Wagyu and Angus beef cuts can get that high, but at that point, we're no longer talking supermarket ground beef, and I hope your wallet is amazing.
http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/ibccut.aspx?id=90547§ion=explore#details
Note: 14g fat, 21g protein in 70% lean, so it would be skewed upward even more in 73/27. The ratios are figured by raw weight, not calories.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
You walk 1/4 mile a day? As in a quarter of a mile? And you think this is increasing your muscle mass?
@VintageFeline the quarter of mile reply was to the question that I was asked. No health claims were stated based on that one daily activity. Do you think that LCHF alone could be responsible for my muscle mass increase?
No which is why I asked. You were asked if you exercised and only mentioned the walking, therefore it is fair for me to assume that's all you do and thus cannot be gaining any appreciable muscle mass.
It is hard to know. I can walk down and back up the steep hill quickly without resting unlike needing to resting 10+ times before I went off of sugar and all grains over 2 years ago.
An increase in fitness does not equate to an increase in muscle mass.
Why then the increase in calf size.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
You walk 1/4 mile a day? As in a quarter of a mile? And you think this is increasing your muscle mass?
@VintageFeline the quarter of mile reply was to the question that I was asked. No health claims were stated based on that one daily activity. Do you think that LCHF alone could be responsible for my muscle mass increase?
No which is why I asked. You were asked if you exercised and only mentioned the walking, therefore it is fair for me to assume that's all you do and thus cannot be gaining any appreciable muscle mass.
It is hard to know. I can walk down and back up the steep hill quickly without resting unlike needing to resting 10+ times before I went off of sugar and all grains over 2 years ago.
An increase in fitness does not equate to an increase in muscle mass.
Why then the increase in calf size.
If prior to the walking, you had been sedentary to the point of atrophy, then yeah, I could see a growth response in the legs.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
By volume, because that's what they are interested in and how it's historically been done. And I see, you are using the term 80/20 when that is how it's normally designated confused me, and I did not do the math, mea culpa.
I doubt the average large animal would be anywhere near as fatty as a grain-fed cow, though -- we used to eat moose and caribou and wild goose and all that when I was a kid, and even goose, which is really fatty when raised to be food, is extremely lean when wild.
Of course, northern animals, as in the Ice Age or some of what the Inuit consume, would be higher fat, but in most climates you wouldn't be eating just game (and why focus so specifically on the Ice Age, if that's the idea -- that's one thing that has never made sense to me). What I found interesting, as noted above, is that where the native diet seems to be so high fat that it would result normally in ketosis, the body seems to adapt so that it does not (as with the Inuits, from what I've read). This doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with keto, but it does go against the idea, at least to me, that there's some argument that human's "natural" diet or state is ketosis.1 -
I have read that the caloric metabolic advantage to carbohydrate restriction is around 300 calories. Meaning that if one is averaging a pound a week on a 1200 calorie traditional diet they could average the same monthly weight loss with 1500 calorie LC diet. Not hugely significant. I don't know if it's true, as I have never tried the comparison myself.
What studies show that?
The ones I am aware of are: Kevin Hall (no advantage or even a slight (irrelevant) advantage to low fat), the ones I was referring to above (slight advantage of low carb for IR people and slight advantage of low fat for IS people), and ones where calories are not controlled (initial increased loss for those who are low carb suggesting that the diet causes greater calorie control, which goes away over time). The latter makes sense to me for two reasons: the low carb diets usually also increase protein, which is satiating for most, and the low carb diets are usually a much greater change (going from 50% carbs to 5% or some such) whereas the low fat is a mild change (fat under 30% from a diet that was about 35% fat). The former requires many foods that are historically overeaten (and are fat and carbs) to be cut out, and my own experience is that when dramatically changing one's diet any way it's initially hard to overeat, and then you figure out how to (what the treats that fit the way of eating) are.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
You walk 1/4 mile a day? As in a quarter of a mile? And you think this is increasing your muscle mass?
@VintageFeline the quarter of mile reply was to the question that I was asked. No health claims were stated based on that one daily activity. Do you think that LCHF alone could be responsible for my muscle mass increase?
No which is why I asked. You were asked if you exercised and only mentioned the walking, therefore it is fair for me to assume that's all you do and thus cannot be gaining any appreciable muscle mass.
It is hard to know. I can walk down and back up the steep hill quickly without resting unlike needing to resting 10+ times before I went off of sugar and all grains over 2 years ago.
An increase in fitness does not equate to an increase in muscle mass.
Why then the increase in calf size.
Did you measure your calves? They are more inches now, when you are down 50 lbs (or whatever it is, correct me if my memory is off), vs. before?
This actually could make sense given what you've said, that you struggled to walk even .25 miles before, which makes me think you may have been largely chair ridden and not mobile at all. It's kind of like when someone breaks a limb and it ends up losing a huge amount of muscle that you regain through normal activity again.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
You walk 1/4 mile a day? As in a quarter of a mile? And you think this is increasing your muscle mass?
@VintageFeline the quarter of mile reply was to the question that I was asked. No health claims were stated based on that one daily activity. Do you think that LCHF alone could be responsible for my muscle mass increase?
No which is why I asked. You were asked if you exercised and only mentioned the walking, therefore it is fair for me to assume that's all you do and thus cannot be gaining any appreciable muscle mass.
It is hard to know. I can walk down and back up the steep hill quickly without resting unlike needing to resting 10+ times before I went off of sugar and all grains over 2 years ago.
An increase in fitness does not equate to an increase in muscle mass.
Why then the increase in calf size.
Did you measure your calves? They are more inches now, when you are down 50 lbs (or whatever it is, correct me if my memory is off), vs. before?
This actually could make sense given what you've said, that you struggled to walk even .25 miles before, which makes me think you may have been largely chair ridden and not mobile at all. It's kind of like when someone breaks a limb and it ends up losing a huge amount of muscle that you regain through normal activity again.
This.
Or, if you didn't measure them, the muscles merely look bigger because you lost fat around them.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
By volume, because that's what they are interested in and how it's historically been done. And I see, you are using the term 80/20 when that is how it's normally designated confused me, and I did not do the math, mea culpa.
I doubt the average large animal would be anywhere near as fatty as a grain-fed cow, though -- we used to eat moose and caribou and wild goose and all that when I was a kid, and even goose, which is really fatty when raised to be food, is extremely lean when wild.
Of course, northern animals, as in the Ice Age or some of what the Inuit consume, would be higher fat, but in most climates you wouldn't be eating just game (and why focus so specifically on the Ice Age, if that's the idea -- that's one thing that has never made sense to me). What I found interesting, as noted above, is that where the native diet seems to be so high fat that it would result normally in ketosis, the body seems to adapt so that it does not (as with the Inuits, from what I've read). This doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with keto, but it does go against the idea, at least to me, that there's some argument that human's "natural" diet or state is ketosis.
The focus on the Pleistocene~Palaeolithic, in this thread anyway, kind of came from me sorry! I assumed the person who claimed that people previously naturally ate in a ketogenic way was referring to that general time period, ie prior to the Neolithic Revolution, since they didn't bother to come back and explain what they were referring to when asked. And we kind of got caught up in Central/Northern European climes. But of course, and contrary to a massive public misconception, it wasn't unbearably cold and icy everywhere, and the mammoth steppe was actually way more productive in terms of plant life than most of the general population think. So a) populations living south of the steppe (which was the majority) would have been eating far leaner animals than our Classic Neanderthal cousins, along with a greater variety of plant foods (Spanish Neanderthals were eating barley, dates, and legumes, among other things, which incidentally flies in the face of the modern 'paleo' diet fad: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120718131348.htm); and b) those who were living on the steppe were eating way more plant matter than previously thought (link somewhere in this thread).2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
You walk 1/4 mile a day? As in a quarter of a mile? And you think this is increasing your muscle mass?
@VintageFeline the quarter of mile reply was to the question that I was asked. No health claims were stated based on that one daily activity. Do you think that LCHF alone could be responsible for my muscle mass increase?
No which is why I asked. You were asked if you exercised and only mentioned the walking, therefore it is fair for me to assume that's all you do and thus cannot be gaining any appreciable muscle mass.
It is hard to know. I can walk down and back up the steep hill quickly without resting unlike needing to resting 10+ times before I went off of sugar and all grains over 2 years ago.
An increase in fitness does not equate to an increase in muscle mass.
Why then the increase in calf size.
Did you measure your calves? They are more inches now, when you are down 50 lbs (or whatever it is, correct me if my memory is off), vs. before?
This actually could make sense given what you've said, that you struggled to walk even .25 miles before, which makes me think you may have been largely chair ridden and not mobile at all. It's kind of like when someone breaks a limb and it ends up losing a huge amount of muscle that you regain through normal activity again.
It's insightful that most of the people who advocate for LCHF (especially here on MFP) aren't particularly active/athletic. IIRC, endurance athletes (who don't possess much muscle mass in the first place) do well on keto; strength/physique athletes and those whose sports require short/intermediate energy bursts don't do near as well on a ketogenic eating pattern. Even Lyle McDonald, who has written several books on ketogenic dieting for athletes recommends CKD/TKD with periodic high-carb refeed days built in.
I'd imagine that if your activity consists mainly of normal daily tasks and/or walking short distances, it doesn't really matter what your macro composition is because you're not putting any significant stress upon your muscles or CNS.0 -
Uh no. Except for the last sentence.BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
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
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
It is because the percentages are by weight, not calories. A gram of fat has more calories than a gram of protein so the calorie percentages will be off. Your 100 grams of beef will contain 80 grams of muscles and 20 grams of fat.0 -
Uh no. Except for the last sentence.BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
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
Hopefully you mean the last half of the last sentence, because the first half is way off 0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
That's something that someone had specially made, or they don't understand beef numbers and pulled something out of their butt. Now, Wagyu and Angus beef cuts can get that high, but at that point, we're no longer talking supermarket ground beef, and I hope your wallet is amazing.
http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/ibccut.aspx?id=90547§ion=explore#details
Note: 14g fat, 21g protein in 70% lean, so it would be skewed upward even more in 73/27. The ratios are figured by raw weight, not calories.
So fat is 126 calories and protein is 84 calories for a total of 210. That's 60% fat and 40% protein...
Wikipedia has 73% lean ground beef at 30g fat and 14g protein, or 270 kcal and 56 kcal. That's 326 kcal with 83% fat and 17% protein... Not a lot of consistency, eh?
I butcher my own beef, and it is pretty high fat. I don't leave a lot for the coyotes. It's cheaper this way.
But when I do buy beef in the store, the less lean it is the cheaper it is.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions