Ketogenic diet
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
Is this directed to me? If so, I have no idea why a keto diet appears to raise my CO. Perhaps it is from lowered inflammation and better health. I don't know about you, but when I flare up, I tend to gain weight. Sugars tend to not agree with me. Plus I am insulin resistant, probably partially from steroids from AI issues. That may well play a large role in it.
Somehow, when I am keto, I can eat more. When I bother logging and weigh all of my food. It's just the way it is. For me. It I increase carbs, and keep calories the same, my CO drops and I gain.
This winter I had a flare-up and ended up needing 25% more thyroid meds. I eneded up gaining close to 10lbs on about 1800-2300 kcal per day, which was my maintenance in the 6 months proceeding my gain. I was eating somewhat higher carbs for me (over 50g) which may have been part of it. I got my meds straightened out and lost a few pounds within a week or two. Then I dropped almost all carbs, logged my calories (weighed my food) at about 1500, and lost another 5-7 lbs in a month. That is a 300-800 calorie difference from when I was maintaining and gaining. I lost more than expected. No idea why.
And yes, I think Halls results showed a 100 kcal benefit that was tapering off at the end of the study. Who knows what would have happened later - gone back up, maintained or dropped even more.
That was a rather... interesting response.
I'm not sure what "sugars" have to do with flares, for example. Are you saying they cause flares, but that you're keeping calories constant? (I'm not sure why you'd increase them if they cause flares, but that's another post, for me, food's not an AI trigger.)
I'm not sure how you can be sure you're keeping your calories the same if you're not consistently logging because it's clear you're not.
It also sounds to me like there was a lot of water weight involved in your fluctuating there, considering what happened and the timing of it with your dietary changes. It's certainly a much more logical explanation that your CO being higher.
I'm glad you found it ".... interesting."
For me, food can be an AI flare trigger. So can stress and fatigue. Hormones too.
I increased carbs (sugars) because I like them. Snap peas, veggies, a coconut flour muffin, or a bowl of fruit taste great and are basically nutritious and I was hopeful that my IR issues would have improved (nope). Sometimes carbs lead to me feeling poorly though. Perhaps I am the only one - bad luck for me and good luck for you, I guess. I am mostly back to very low carb again. My body does best there. Dietary experimentation (within reason) is not something to be avoided, IMO.
I don't vary a lot in my foods. After a couple of years, I know my meals and snacks' calorie counts.
I'm sure water weight can be involved - that was probably the few pounds I lost after changing meds. It was not the entire 10 or so lbs.
Some people around here tend not to believe that I lose faster eating low carb. I have met many who did not believe I lost 2-3 lbs a week for a few months on 1500 kcal per day. A sort of "it didn't happen to me so I don't believe it" sort of thing. *shrug*
Losing 2-3 pounds per week on 1500 would mean you either burn up to 3000 or don't digest a big part of the calories you eat. The first is highly unrealistic given your stats, the second is medically concerning. Pick your poison.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
Is this directed to me? If so, I have no idea why a keto diet appears to raise my CO. Perhaps it is from lowered inflammation and better health. I don't know about you, but when I flare up, I tend to gain weight. Sugars tend to not agree with me. Plus I am insulin resistant, probably partially from steroids from AI issues. That may well play a large role in it.
Somehow, when I am keto, I can eat more. When I bother logging and weigh all of my food. It's just the way it is. For me. It I increase carbs, and keep calories the same, my CO drops and I gain.
This winter I had a flare-up and ended up needing 25% more thyroid meds. I eneded up gaining close to 10lbs on about 1800-2300 kcal per day, which was my maintenance in the 6 months proceeding my gain. I was eating somewhat higher carbs for me (over 50g) which may have been part of it. I got my meds straightened out and lost a few pounds within a week or two. Then I dropped almost all carbs, logged my calories (weighed my food) at about 1500, and lost another 5-7 lbs in a month. That is a 300-800 calorie difference from when I was maintaining and gaining. I lost more than expected. No idea why.
And yes, I think Halls results showed a 100 kcal benefit that was tapering off at the end of the study. Who knows what would have happened later - gone back up, maintained or dropped even more.
That was a rather... interesting response.
I'm not sure what "sugars" have to do with flares, for example. Are you saying they cause flares, but that you're keeping calories constant? (I'm not sure why you'd increase them if they cause flares, but that's another post, for me, food's not an AI trigger.)
I'm not sure how you can be sure you're keeping your calories the same if you're not consistently logging because it's clear you're not.
It also sounds to me like there was a lot of water weight involved in your fluctuating there, considering what happened and the timing of it with your dietary changes. It's certainly a much more logical explanation that your CO being higher.
I'm glad you found it ".... interesting."
For me, food can be an AI flare trigger. So can stress and fatigue. Hormones too.
I increased carbs (sugars) because I like them. Snap peas, veggies, a coconut flour muffin, or a bowl of fruit taste great and are basically nutritious and I was hopeful that my IR issues would have improved (nope). Sometimes carbs lead to me feeling poorly though. Perhaps I am the only one - bad luck for me and good luck for you, I guess. I am mostly back to very low carb again. My body does best there. Dietary experimentation (within reason) is not something to be avoided, IMO.
I don't vary a lot in my foods. After a couple of years, I know my meals and snacks' calorie counts.
I'm sure water weight can be involved - that was probably the few pounds I lost after changing meds. It was not the entire 10 or so lbs.
Some people around here tend not to believe that I lose faster eating low carb. I have met many who did not believe I lost 2-3 lbs a week for a few months on 1500 kcal per day. A sort of "it didn't happen to me so I don't believe it" sort of thing. *shrug*
IIRC, you maintain on around 2200 or so calories a day.
I find it hard to believe that the same diet (way of eating) that maintains your weight at that calorie level created a deficit enough to lose you weight commensurate with a deficit equivalent to a much higher maintenance figure.
That just makes no sense whatsoever.
Cut 700 calories, lose at a rate equivalent to cutting three times that much.
Change any of those 700 calories to a different macro? Gain what you insist is fat and not glycogen.
Alrighty then. I think you need to speak to your doctor about this.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
Is this directed to me? If so, I have no idea why a keto diet appears to raise my CO. Perhaps it is from lowered inflammation and better health. I don't know about you, but when I flare up, I tend to gain weight. Sugars tend to not agree with me. Plus I am insulin resistant, probably partially from steroids from AI issues. That may well play a large role in it.
Somehow, when I am keto, I can eat more. When I bother logging and weigh all of my food. It's just the way it is. For me. It I increase carbs, and keep calories the same, my CO drops and I gain.
This winter I had a flare-up and ended up needing 25% more thyroid meds. I eneded up gaining close to 10lbs on about 1800-2300 kcal per day, which was my maintenance in the 6 months proceeding my gain. I was eating somewhat higher carbs for me (over 50g) which may have been part of it. I got my meds straightened out and lost a few pounds within a week or two. Then I dropped almost all carbs, logged my calories (weighed my food) at about 1500, and lost another 5-7 lbs in a month. That is a 300-800 calorie difference from when I was maintaining and gaining. I lost more than expected. No idea why.
And yes, I think Halls results showed a 100 kcal benefit that was tapering off at the end of the study. Who knows what would have happened later - gone back up, maintained or dropped even more.
That was a rather... interesting response.
I'm not sure what "sugars" have to do with flares, for example. Are you saying they cause flares, but that you're keeping calories constant? (I'm not sure why you'd increase them if they cause flares, but that's another post, for me, food's not an AI trigger.)
I'm not sure how you can be sure you're keeping your calories the same if you're not consistently logging because it's clear you're not.
It also sounds to me like there was a lot of water weight involved in your fluctuating there, considering what happened and the timing of it with your dietary changes. It's certainly a much more logical explanation that your CO being higher.
I'm glad you found it ".... interesting."
For me, food can be an AI flare trigger. So can stress and fatigue. Hormones too.
I increased carbs (sugars) because I like them. Snap peas, veggies, a coconut flour muffin, or a bowl of fruit taste great and are basically nutritious and I was hopeful that my IR issues would have improved (nope). Sometimes carbs lead to me feeling poorly though. Perhaps I am the only one - bad luck for me and good luck for you, I guess. I am mostly back to very low carb again. My body does best there. Dietary experimentation (within reason) is not something to be avoided, IMO.
I don't vary a lot in my foods. After a couple of years, I know my meals and snacks' calorie counts.
I'm sure water weight can be involved - that was probably the few pounds I lost after changing meds. It was not the entire 10 or so lbs.
Some people around here tend not to believe that I lose faster eating low carb. I have met many who did not believe I lost 2-3 lbs a week for a few months on 1500 kcal per day. A sort of "it didn't happen to me so I don't believe it" sort of thing. *shrug*
IIRC, you maintain on around 2200 or so calories a day.
I find it hard to believe that the same diet (way of eating) that maintains your weight at that calorie level created a deficit enough to lose you weight commensurate with a deficit equivalent to a much higher maintenance figure.
That just makes no sense whatsoever.
Cut 700 calories, lose at a rate equivalent to cutting three times that much.
Change any of those 700 calories to a different macro? Gain what you insist is fat and not glycogen.
Alrighty then. I think you need to speak to your doctor about this.
It doesn't make a lot of sense if you just take into account CICO. If you do consider that health, stress and hormones play a role in CO (in different ways for different people) then it can make sense.
My doctor recommended a ketogenic diet.
He is quite pleased with how well it has worked for me.
12 -
Health, stress and hormones don't make you burn as many calories as an elite bodybuilder without doing tons of exercise.
Seriously, if your car was suddenly using a lot more fuel than it should, you'd take it to the mechanic cause something could be seriously wrong with the engine, but when it's your body that is behaving strangely people think everything's hunky dory.6 -
Excuse me while I enjoy some jerky and pork rinds. You can keep your boring old potato chips.
I guess I must have missed the part where ONLY people on keto diets can eat turkey and pork rinds. Because I'm nowhere near keto and I eat them all the time (and rarely eat potato chips). Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
...but since I've lost 70 pounds and greatly improved my health, strength, body composition and workout performance, I kinda doubt it.8 -
Excuse me while I enjoy some jerky and pork rinds. You can keep your boring old potato chips.
I guess I must have missed the part where ONLY people on keto diets can eat turkey and pork rinds. Because I'm nowhere near keto and I eat them all the time (and rarely eat potato chips). Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
...but since I've lost 70 pounds and greatly improved my health, strength, body composition and workout performance, I kinda doubt it.
I guess I missed the part where the only choices were jerky/pork rinds or potato chips.
I'd rather have an apple with peanut butter.
I guess I'm the one doing it wrong!7 -
1) Ketogenic diets are a fad diet. While they have therapeutic benefit for some, for the vast majority of people it's just a way of restricting calories. For short term weight loss, sure try it out; but if you're tired of yo-yo dieting, this won't be the lifestyle hack that will keep you at a low weight for life.
2) When did we stop distinguishing between complex carbs and simple carbs? Most people feel like crap after a lot of refined sugar, but that's different from eating a banana or a pile of broccoli or a side of rice.
3) When did we lose sight of moderation? It's possible to have like, a NORMAL life and eat NORMAL foods in NORMAL quantities (based on your activity level and body weight) and be healthy.
The pseudoscience pushing back on CICO and peddling extreme diets like ketogenic diet (and yes it's extreme, your body is not supposed to run on ketones) is harmful and just plain wrong.
That being said, sure, try it. You won't die, probably.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Excuse me while I enjoy some jerky and pork rinds. You can keep your boring old potato chips.
I guess I must have missed the part where ONLY people on keto diets can eat turkey and pork rinds. Because I'm nowhere near keto and I eat them all the time (and rarely eat potato chips). Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
...but since I've lost 70 pounds and greatly improved my health, strength, body composition and workout performance, I kinda doubt it.
I guess I missed the part where the only choices were jerky/pork rinds or potato chips.
I'd rather have an apple with peanut butter.
I guess I'm the one doing it wrong!
I just had jerky and pork rinds for lunch - along with a tuna sandwich and a tangerine. This morning's breakfast was scrambled eggs made with butter and heavy cream - along with two slices of toast and a cup of orange creme Greek yogurt. I'm already eyeballing either an apple or a d'anjou pear for an afternoon snack.
I'm a big fan of "the best of all possible diets", where my variety is unlimited and I still get great results.
5 -
1) Ketogenic diets are a fad diet. While they have therapeutic benefit for some, for the vast majority of people it's just a way of restricting calories. For short term weight loss, sure try it out; but if you're tired of yo-yo dieting, this won't be the lifestyle hack that will keep you at a low weight for life.
2) When did we stop distinguishing between complex carbs and simple carbs? Most people feel like crap after a lot of refined sugar, but that's different from eating a banana or a pile of broccoli or a side of rice.
3) When did we lose sight of moderation? It's possible to have like, a NORMAL life and eat NORMAL foods in NORMAL quantities (based on your activity level and body weight) and be healthy.
The pseudoscience pushing back on CICO and peddling extreme diets like ketogenic diet (and yes it's extreme, your body is not supposed to run on ketones) is harmful and just plain wrong.
That being said, sure, try it. You won't die, probably.
One of the things that drives me batty is seeing people who have read low carb sites come on here and start blasting things like rice and potatoes and calling them "simple carbs".
Primer:
Carbs are saccharides (sugars). A monosaccharide is a simple carb. Sugar in all its forms is a mono (single)
saccharide. Table sugar is a simple carb. So is fruit.
Starches are di (double) saccharides. They are complex carbs. These can be refined or whole, but they are still starches. Potatoes and white rice are both complex carbs. Both white and wheat bread are complex carbs.
In discussions, I think language should be clear. There is a difference between complex and simple carbs, and a distinction between refined and unrefined carbs. A lot of people use simple vs. complex when they really mean refined vs. unrefined.10 -
Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.19
-
-
Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
Coffee with butter/coconut oil, "fat bombs", pork rinds and bacon are the most "natural and best fuel for your body"? Lol.
(Not that I'm saying bacon is a bad thing, mind you. Because mmmmmm, bacon.)7 -
-
With the exception of coffee, I haven't had fiber for months and don't have any issues with pooping.
ETA: For the first year of low carb, I ate a ton of green veggies. I'm not like many, but many keto dieters consume lots of low net carb veggies.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
With the exception of coffee, I haven't had fiber for months and don't have any issues with pooping.
ETA: For the first year of low carb, I ate a ton of green veggies. I'm not like many, but many keto dieters consume lots of low net carb veggies.
I recall your claims of eating 12-pound salads. I'd think those would provide plenty of fiber.7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
With the exception of coffee, I haven't had fiber for months and don't have any issues with pooping.
ETA: For the first year of low carb, I ate a ton of green veggies. I'm not like many, but many keto dieters consume lots of low net carb veggies.
I recall your claims of eating 12-pound salads. I'd think those would provide plenty of fiber.
Last time I had a 12 lb. salad was more than 2 years ago. And yet for more than 2 months, I have eaten almost no plants. Still, I don't have problems pooping... obviously fiber is not necessary for that function.7 -
Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
If you exercise and lift, carbs are agreed to be pretty essential to performance. You won't find many keto elite athletes.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions