Ketogenic diet

1356727

Replies

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    No for me. I don't like restrictions.
  • bweath2
    bweath2 Posts: 147 Member
    @lemurcat12 I've always thought that maybe I was IR, although my labs are always good. Would it make sense that I have MUCH more energy on keto even at a lower caloric intake because of my high BF%? I'm 5' 11" 285lb. and about 180lb. LBM.
    Previously when I lost weight, my energy was not as high when I was close to 225lbs.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    It's a little late in the thread for this post but the ISSN's position statement has a worthwhile overview of diet types. Here's some of what they say regarding ketogenic diets:

    "If there is any advantage to KD over non-KD for fat loss, it is potentially in the realm of appetite regulation. Under non-calorically restricted conditions, KD has consistently resulted in body fat and/or body weight reduction [65, 66, 67, 68, 69]. This occurs via spontaneous energy intake reduction, which could be due to increased satiety through a suppression of ghrelin production [70].

    Moreover, KD has demonstrated hunger-suppressive effects independent of protein content. In a 4-week crossover design, Johnstone et al. [66] found that a KD consumed ad libitum (without purposeful caloric restriction) resulted in an energy intake reduction of 294 kcal/day. The latter results were seen despite a relatively high protein intake (30% of energy) matched between KD (4% CHO) and non-KD (35% CHO) conditions. In further support of this idea, a meta-analysis by Gibson et al. [71] found that KD suppresses appetite more than VLED. However, it remains unclear whether the appetite suppression is due to ketosis or other factors such as an increased protein or fat intake, or restriction of carbohydrate."


    gO7Lv4k.jpg

    Source
  • bweath2
    bweath2 Posts: 147 Member
    @AlabasterVerve
    @psuLemon
    The studies you refer to seem to show that in random groups of participants, keto diets and non- keto diets have a similar average combined result. Seems there would be an equal number IR and IS in both groups for example.
    Do you know of any studies that looked at individual responses on keto vs. high carb? An entire group on keto, then on high carb? Curious if as individuals some people lose more fat on keto and some on higher carb. all other factors being equal.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    edited September 2017
    Doubt it, but check out Christopher Gardner's diet studies. His A to Z study is where the original IS/low fat, IR/low carb hypothesis came from I believe. His follow up RCT to test that theory controlled for diet quality and showed no benefit.

    Research is ongoing but I wouldn't put too much stock into the notion insulin sensitivity/resistance plays too much of a part in one diet being better for weightloss than another. Diet quality and adherence is where it's at, IMO.

    ETA: If you do have any markers for metabolic syndrome I think it's extremely foolish given the current research not to restrict your carbs at least somewhat and to avoid refined carbohydrate (and possibly industrial seed oils too) as much as possible - hyperinsulimia is no joke.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    bweath2 wrote: »
    @AlabasterVerve
    @psuLemon
    The studies you refer to seem to show that in random groups of participants, keto diets and non- keto diets have a similar average combined result. Seems there would be an equal number IR and IS in both groups for example.
    Do you know of any studies that looked at individual responses on keto vs. high carb? An entire group on keto, then on high carb? Curious if as individuals some people lose more fat on keto and some on higher carb. all other factors being equal.

    Check this out:

    http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance-is-a-spectrum/

    http://caloriesproper.com/chris-gardner-strikes-again/
    At baseline, patients were divided into insulin sensitive & resistant groups based on insulin levels (AUC) during an oral glucose tolerance test. Then those groups were assigned to either a low fat or low carb diet. There were four groups, three time points (baseline, 3 months, and 6 months).


    To make a long story short, insulin sensitive patients randomized to the low fat diet lost about 20% more weight than those randomized to low carb.... Insulin resistant dieters lost more weight on low carb...

    Not all the studies are like this, but there are a number that are. I would not be at all surprised if it's due to better compliance, and also would not be surprised if it's because of energy and resulting TDEE to some degree.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,426 MFP Moderator
    edited September 2017
    bweath2 wrote: »
    @AlabasterVerve
    @psuLemon
    The studies you refer to seem to show that in random groups of participants, keto diets and non- keto diets have a similar average combined result. Seems there would be an equal number IR and IS in both groups for example.
    Do you know of any studies that looked at individual responses on keto vs. high carb? An entire group on keto, then on high carb? Curious if as individuals some people lose more fat on keto and some on higher carb. all other factors being equal.

    Unfortunately, there seems to be limited amounts of research regarding keto diets. I think it would definitely be worthwhile, but it's speculation at best currently.


    here is the study I was referencing earlier.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full



  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,426 MFP Moderator
    Doubt it, but check out Christopher Gardner's diet studies. His A to Z study is where the original IS/low fat, IR/low carb hypothesis came from I believe. His follow up RCT to test that theory controlled for diet quality and showed no benefit.

    Research is ongoing but I wouldn't put too much stock into the notion insulin sensitivity/resistance plays too much of a part in one diet being better for weightloss than another. Diet quality and adherence is where it's at, IMO.

    ETA: If you do have any markers for metabolic syndrome I think it's extremely foolish given the current research not to restrict your carbs at least somewhat and to avoid refined carbohydrate (and possibly industrial seed oils too) as much as possible - hyperinsulimia is no joke.

    I couldn't agree with you any more. I know i focus on diet quality. My greater focus is just eating foods that are filling. For me, it's proteins and high GI fruits and starchy foods. I cut fats as my immediate approach to weight loss, but try to incorporate fish and avocado as much as I can.

    I also agree that many with MS would be foolish to not cut carbs.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    edited September 2017
    Yes? No? Why?

    It depends...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    I don't know why it's so complicated for people to just try different things or modify their plans to work for themselves, and accept that others do the same and get different results.

    I eat 80g of Carbs a day or less. When I increase that I feel bloated, hungry, and lethargic. Other people would feel bloated, hungry, and lethargic if they ONLY ate 80g of carbs a day.

    There is no single "recipe" for being successful on a diet. Run identical studies with diets on different groups of people and you will likely get different, and possibly contradictory, findings.

    If you see a diet that sounds like it would work for you, try it. If it doesn't work for you. Stop it and try something different.

    It's really not that freakin' difficult to understand that different diets effect different people in different ways.

    This statement is directed as much as the "CICO ONLY FOREVER AND ALWAYS" people as it is at "KETO IS MAGIC" people.

    I'll say it again, and say it a thousand more times in my life probably.

    To lose weight the only thing you need to do is eat a calorie deficit.
    To be healthy you need to do a lot MORE than just eat a calorie deficit.

    What that "more" is, varies WIDELY from person to person.

    Not sure what you don't understand about CICO, but it not a way of eating, it is a math formula for gaining, losing, or maintaining weight. Unless you know of a way to gain weight while eating in a calorie deficit?
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    All diets boil down to energy balance when it comes to weight loss or gain. CICO...
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    I don't know why it's so complicated for people to just try different things or modify their plans to work for themselves, and accept that others do the same and get different results.

    I eat 80g of Carbs a day or less. When I increase that I feel bloated, hungry, and lethargic. Other people would feel bloated, hungry, and lethargic if they ONLY ate 80g of carbs a day.

    There is no single "recipe" for being successful on a diet. Run identical studies with diets on different groups of people and you will likely get different, and possibly contradictory, findings.

    If you see a diet that sounds like it would work for you, try it. If it doesn't work for you. Stop it and try something different.

    It's really not that freakin' difficult to understand that different diets effect different people in different ways.

    This statement is directed as much as the "CICO ONLY FOREVER AND ALWAYS" people as it is at "KETO IS MAGIC" people.

    I'll say it again, and say it a thousand more times in my life probably.

    To lose weight the only thing you need to do is eat a calorie deficit.
    To be healthy you need to do a lot MORE than just eat a calorie deficit.

    What that "more" is, varies WIDELY from person to person.

    CICO describes how weight loss happens. But I've never seen someone who acknowledges that argue that people shouldn't also pay attention to what helps them, as an individual, meet their calorie goal.

    It's people who advocate for the reality of CICO that you'll also see letting people know that they can skip breakfast if they don't want it, but that they should eat breakfast if it helps them meet their goals. Same with things like IF or eating more protein/fewer carbohydrates or making more meals at home or whatever.

    It's acknowledging the reality of how people actually gain and lose weight that makes it possible for us to understand that different dietary strategies will work for different people because they're all just ways to make it easier for us to hit our calorie goal, the thing that truly matters.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    I don't know why it's so complicated for people to just try different things or modify their plans to work for themselves, and accept that others do the same and get different results.

    I eat 80g of Carbs a day or less. When I increase that I feel bloated, hungry, and lethargic. Other people would feel bloated, hungry, and lethargic if they ONLY ate 80g of carbs a day.

    There is no single "recipe" for being successful on a diet. Run identical studies with diets on different groups of people and you will likely get different, and possibly contradictory, findings.

    If you see a diet that sounds like it would work for you, try it. If it doesn't work for you. Stop it and try something different.

    It's really not that freakin' difficult to understand that different diets effect different people in different ways.

    This statement is directed as much as the "CICO ONLY FOREVER AND ALWAYS" people as it is at "KETO IS MAGIC" people.

    I'll say it again, and say it a thousand more times in my life probably.

    To lose weight the only thing you need to do is eat a calorie deficit.
    To be healthy you need to do a lot MORE than just eat a calorie deficit.

    What that "more" is, varies WIDELY from person to person.

    Not sure what you don't understand about CICO, but it not a way of eating, it is a math formula for gaining, losing, or maintaining weight. Unless you know of a way to gain weight while eating in a calorie deficit?

    CICO is the GOAL, not the means. There are countless ways of successfully achieving and sustaining a calorie deficit.

    This is true, and I largely agreed with your post, but saying CICO is what matters for weight loss does not imply that one should not think about strategies that works for them to lower calories.

    I find it easier to eat fewer calories (and just am happier) eating a diet lower in carbs and higher in fat than, say, MFP's defaults. I also find it easier to limit my sweets more than some do, but not cut them entirely out (as some do). I also find it extremely important to not graze and to eat larger meals (2-3) vs. snacking. On the other hand, rules that help some (like not eating after 7) would not work with my lifestyle, as I routinely eat dinner at 9-10. I also think it's best for me to build all meals around protein and vegetables.

    Point is that whatever my personal rules, I am losing weight through CICO. CICO is what ultimately matters for weight loss. When I am saying that, I am not saying do not change your diet in any way or mindlessly cut everything by a percentage or never experiment to see if things might make it easier. The only people who claim CICO means anything like that are anti CICO (for whatever reason) who seem to me making up a strawman, IME.
    Simply saying "Just eat less calories" is about the single most unhelpful and pointless piece of diet advice imaginable.

    I disagree, because what works differs from person to person, and being told rules that don't work for everyone (like mine for me, above) is NOT helpful. Knowing you just need to figure out how to get a deficit is helpful and assumes the person is smart enough to figure out what works for them without nonsense about having to do stuff they may not find helpful.