Ketogenic diet
Replies
-
Keto's definitely not for me. I wouldn't be able to give up oatmeal. Also, copious amounts of fats has never effected my digestion in a good way.
I also find it super annoying to be told I shouldn't eat carbs...1 -
Keto's definitely not for me. I wouldn't be able to give up oatmeal. Also, copious amounts of fats has never effected my digestion in a good way.
I also find it super annoying to be told I shouldn't eat carbs...
I think the only time one should be told this is if they are trying to lower carbs. If you want to eat low carb,or should be eating low carb (for medical reasons), then you should not eat (many) carbs. If you want higher carb, you should eat higher carb.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.
Yes, but those of us who are "fat adapted" become efficient at using fat during endurance activities. We can use fat at a higher rate than someone who eats SAD.
For many years, it was believed that the most elite athletes were never able to oxidize more than 1g/min. of fat for energy... and most athletes are closer to the 0.4g-0.6g range. More recent science has studied fat adapted athletes and found rates as high as 1.8g/min.; though many fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at rates around 1.2g/min. - 1.5 g/min. 1.8g/min. is the high end of what I've seen from study results thus far and I'm acknowledging it is an elite example. Nonetheless, even non-elite fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at higher levels than the level previously believed to be the max possible rate.
You could also rephrase the bolded statement to read:
People that do endurance activities become more fat adapted than those that don't do endurance activities. Fat adaptation isn't a yes/no thing - it's a sliding scale and it's not just your diet that influences it.10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.
Yes, but those of us who are "fat adapted" become efficient at using fat during endurance activities. We can use fat at a higher rate than someone who eats SAD.
For many years, it was believed that the most elite athletes were never able to oxidize more than 1g/min. of fat for energy... and most athletes are closer to the 0.4g-0.6g range. More recent science has studied fat adapted athletes and found rates as high as 1.8g/min.; though many fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at rates around 1.2g/min. - 1.5 g/min. 1.8g/min. is the high end of what I've seen from study results thus far and I'm acknowledging it is an elite example. Nonetheless, even non-elite fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at higher levels than the level previously believed to be the max possible rate.
You could also rephrase the bolded statement to read:
People that do endurance activities become more fat adapted than those that don't do endurance activities. Fat adaptation isn't a yes/no thing - it's a sliding scale and it's not just your diet that influences it.
True. It is not just diet that influences how efficiently one burns fat. Endurance sports will take you to a higher level than an inactive person. The endurance athlete who is also fat adapted will generally be the most efficient at using fat for fuel, and inactive people with a higher carb diet (possibly those who eat frequently) will be the least efficient.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.
Yes, but those of us who are "fat adapted" become efficient at using fat during endurance activities. We can use fat at a higher rate than someone who eats SAD.
For many years, it was believed that the most elite athletes were never able to oxidize more than 1g/min. of fat for energy... and most athletes are closer to the 0.4g-0.6g range. More recent science has studied fat adapted athletes and found rates as high as 1.8g/min.; though many fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at rates around 1.2g/min. - 1.5 g/min. 1.8g/min. is the high end of what I've seen from study results thus far and I'm acknowledging it is an elite example. Nonetheless, even non-elite fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at higher levels than the level previously believed to be the max possible rate.
You could also rephrase the bolded statement to read:
People that do endurance activities become more fat adapted than those that don't do endurance activities. Fat adaptation isn't a yes/no thing - it's a sliding scale and it's not just your diet that influences it.
Sure, and the endurance athlete who eats SAD is going to still be unable to exceed 1g/min. while the endurance athlete who is fat adapted will be beyond that. I suppose that would be a similar variance between non-athletes who are sitting around all day either eating SAD or eating a keto diet... but it would be less valuable to those sedentary examples who are not concerned about where their fuel is going to come from if they ran out of food awhile ago and still have a lot of miles to go before reaching the next place to fuel up... at an aid station or finish line during a race, or when they reach such a place when hiking/trail running/biking/etc. long distances.8 -
Why is the comparison SAD or keto? How many serious athletes, amateur or professional, are sitting around eating chips and other low nutrient foods? And why is it somehow superior to be fat adapted and an endurance athlete? There aren't many athletes competing at a high level who are keto and there's a reason for that.
Have at it but let's not pretend there's something magical about keto and endurance sports.13 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Why is the comparison SAD or keto? How many serious athletes, amateur or professional, are sitting around eating chips and other low nutrient foods?
When talking about SAD, I wasn't implying chips are the only carb-heavy foods consumed. I'm not sure why that would be assumed.VintageFeline wrote: »And why is it somehow superior to be fat adapted and an endurance athlete?
See above for an explanation. Fat adapted athletes don't need to rely on carrying a bunch of Gu's, Honey Stingers, or similar high carb fuel to prevent bonking.VintageFeline wrote: »There aren't many athletes competing at a high level who are keto and there's a reason for that.
When I say "athlete," I'm not just talking about professional athletes. I would include recreational athletes such as myself. While I can't name a professional athlete who is fat adapted, you can throw any professional athlete's name you want at me and I wouldn't be able to describe the details behind any one of their diets. The same goes for any recreational athlete or any other person except me.
What I can say is that old habits tend to die hard and new scientific research within established subjects tends to be very slow at getting put into practice. My observation is that it often takes many years - often a decade or more for research to become commonly understood and used by industry professionals.
A personal example is the term "double diabetes" (used to describe a patient with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes). I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1995 and type 2 in 1998, making me a "double diabetic" at that time. The term was first used to describe such increasing occurrences in scientific literature in 1991, though the first time I met an endocrinologist who had ever heard of it was in 2004. Even the endocrinologist who diagnosed type 2 in 1998 did not use that term and simply use "and also type 2." She said I was the 3rd she had ever seen in her career. By the late 2000's, it was a well known term among endocrinologists and it was no longer considered to be so rare when patients had both of these diseases; though many GP's don't understand it even today. It took from 1991 to the late 2000's for a something non-controversial to become understood by professionals in that field. That seems to be fairly common in other cases, in my experience and observations in many cases ranging across many fields of study.
Previous studies commenced testing immediately after switching athletes to a low carb diet rather than providing time for study participants to become fat adapted. This practice resulted in the [incorrect] understanding that athletes who eat low carb still max out at the same rate of fat oxidation and that diet makes no difference on the rate of fat oxidation. This also led to the common belief that quick carbs for energy provided an advantage in all cases, even for endurance. More recent research published within the past 8 years disputes that commonly held understanding, but it won't become known and understood by most professionals within the field for probably another decade (more or less). For now, the old research indicating fat oxidation rate is unaffected by diet is still what most professionals within the industry know and understand.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.
Yes, but those of us who are "fat adapted" become efficient at using fat during endurance activities. We can use fat at a higher rate than someone who eats SAD.
For many years, it was believed that the most elite athletes were never able to oxidize more than 1g/min. of fat for energy... and most athletes are closer to the 0.4g-0.6g range. More recent science has studied fat adapted athletes and found rates as high as 1.8g/min.; though many fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at rates around 1.2g/min. - 1.5 g/min. 1.8g/min. is the high end of what I've seen from study results thus far and I'm acknowledging it is an elite example. Nonetheless, even non-elite fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at higher levels than the level previously believed to be the max possible rate.
You could also rephrase the bolded statement to read:
People that do endurance activities become more fat adapted than those that don't do endurance activities. Fat adaptation isn't a yes/no thing - it's a sliding scale and it's not just your diet that influences it.
Sure, and the endurance athlete who eats SAD is going to still be unable to exceed 1g/min. while the endurance athlete who is fat adapted will be beyond that.
I don't think we know that. Trying to be more "fat-adapted" is really trendy in a lot of endurance training right now. I was following a plan where you did a number of runs, including long runs, fasted in the morning, and then alternated with practicing fueling. Supposedly it can make a difference, don't know how or how well they tested it, of course.
The bigger question is probably why or whether it matters if your only goal is going as fast as possible and you don't have a problem fueling on the run for, say, a marathon or longer. And at a certain point you are going to need to refuel no matter how fat adapted you are, and more if you want to push the speed more. (I often do long runs or bike for more time than many recommend without refueling (including during a rather hilly series of rides in Hawaii), but I don't kid myself that it's about anything more in that case than me not pushing the intensity.)0 -
Also, I'll point out that there is some research to show that ketones help reduce the effects of methylglyoxal, which is believed to cause some aging related diseases. This is a benefit for sedentary individuals as well as athletes, so there is some benefit for sedentary individuals who eat a ketogenic diet. It just isn't as much benefit as a significantly diminished risk of 'bonking' is for endurance athletes.8
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.
Yes, but those of us who are "fat adapted" become efficient at using fat during endurance activities. We can use fat at a higher rate than someone who eats SAD.
For many years, it was believed that the most elite athletes were never able to oxidize more than 1g/min. of fat for energy... and most athletes are closer to the 0.4g-0.6g range. More recent science has studied fat adapted athletes and found rates as high as 1.8g/min.; though many fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at rates around 1.2g/min. - 1.5 g/min. 1.8g/min. is the high end of what I've seen from study results thus far and I'm acknowledging it is an elite example. Nonetheless, even non-elite fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at higher levels than the level previously believed to be the max possible rate.
You could also rephrase the bolded statement to read:
People that do endurance activities become more fat adapted than those that don't do endurance activities. Fat adaptation isn't a yes/no thing - it's a sliding scale and it's not just your diet that influences it.
Sure, and the endurance athlete who eats SAD is going to still be unable to exceed 1g/min. while the endurance athlete who is fat adapted will be beyond that. I suppose that would be a similar variance between non-athletes who are sitting around all day either eating SAD or eating a keto diet... but it would be less valuable to those sedentary examples who are not concerned about where their fuel is going to come from if they ran out of food awhile ago and still have a lot of miles to go before reaching the next place to fuel up... at an aid station or finish line during a race, or when they reach such a place when hiking/trail running/biking/etc. long distances.
It's a pretty silly dichotomy between Keto and SAD - most endurance athletes eat well to fuel their sport whatever their macro preferences. (I'm not American by the way, like the majority of people on this planet!)
The the options aren't either keto or carb gels. The majority of my carbs come from food when I'm doing long distance events. I'm a cyclist not a runner so carrying supplies is easy - my limit is the amount of fluid I can carry rather than the amount of energy I can carry.
In summary it boils down to if you become better fat adapted by your training and/or your diet you gain the ability to go further but only if you keep your speed moderate which may be somewhat handy in ultra endurance events where you have access to water but not food and aren't interested in setting a fast pace.
So somewhat interesting from a physiological perspective and with almost no practical advantage beyond a tiny niche of people.8 -
crisscott11 wrote: »Yes? No? Why?
@crisscott11 if you are still interested I found in my case that carb addiction (controlling cravings for them) can be the road block to living in a state of nutritional ketosis.
While having lived in a state on nutritional ketosis for three years I now do not see it as diet plan but in my case it is my way to recover health losses from eating high carb for the past 50 years. Yes I have lost weight but it had nothing to do with counting calories. After a few hellish weeks my carb cravings started crashing and have yet to return after I left eating added sugars and all forms of all grains Oct 2014.
If one can go 30 days without eating carbs without any strong cravings for them then I say they may not have a carb addiction so to speak. People that can not may have one in most cases perhaps.
Trying to diet to loss weight I found over my lifetime to be a suckers game. When I cut out trying to loss weight and only focused on gaining health it was my turn around point and the end of yo-yoing weight for the past 3 years.
Do not focus on what works for others but try to find what works for you. You are the only one that counts in the end. There are many success ways one can eat I expect. Leaving off carbs for the most part was the answer in my case but others do just fine eating another way.
Best of success.15 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »crisscott11 wrote: »Yes? No? Why?
@crisscott11 if you are still interested I found in my case that carb addiction (controlling cravings for them) can be the road block to living in a state of nutritional ketosis.
While having lived in a state on nutritional ketosis for three years I now do not see it as diet plan but in my case it is my way to recover health losses from eating high carb for the past 50 years. Yes I have lost weight but it had nothing to do with counting calories. After a few hellish weeks my carb cravings started crashing and have yet to return after I left eating added sugars and all forms of all grains Oct 2014.
If one can go 30 days without eating carbs without any strong cravings for them then I say they may not have a carb addiction so to speak. People that can not may have one in most cases perhaps.
Trying to diet to loss weight I found over my lifetime to be a suckers game. When I cut out trying to loss weight and only focused on gaining health it was my turn around point and the end of yo-yoing weight for the past 3 years.
Do not focus on what works for others but try to find what works for you. You are the only one that counts in the end. There are many success ways one can eat I expect. Leaving off carbs for the most part was the answer in my case but others do just fine eating another way.
Best of success.
If I tried to go 30 days without eating carbohydrates, I think I would be craving some variety in my diet (as it would be very limited). I would be thinking about the textures and tastes of vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains, foods that I enjoy (and have no trouble moderating). I don't think this means I have an addiction to carbohydrates, I think it means that -- like many humans -- I enjoy a wide variety of foods.10 -
well I found one downside to keto, or low carb in general. Though it shouldn't have been unexpected if I'd thought about it.
Last weekend I had a day where I went on a carb binge. I stayed under maintenance calories for the day, but I ate a TON of carbs compared to the 60-80g I usually eat.
I put on so much water weight after that, it was unreal. My weight (at the scale, I'm not an idiot) went back up from 246 to 252, and I didn't get back down to 244 (where I should be based on CICO math) until. Yesterday. Brutal.2 -
well I found one downside to keto, or low carb in general. Though it shouldn't have been unexpected if I'd thought about it.
Last weekend I had a day where I went on a carb binge. I stayed under maintenance calories for the day, but I ate a TON of carbs compared to the 60-80g I usually eat.
I put on so much water weight after that, it was unreal. My weight (at the scale, I'm not an idiot) went back up from 246 to 252, and I didn't get back down to 244 (where I should be based on CICO math) until. Yesterday. Brutal.
When people start low carb, they shed glycogen and a lot of water weight along with that. Replenishing glycogen adds a lot of water weight as well. Losing and gaining that water weight feels good (or bad), but is inconsequential. People who want to lose weight generally are aiming for body fat loss.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »well I found one downside to keto, or low carb in general. Though it shouldn't have been unexpected if I'd thought about it.
Last weekend I had a day where I went on a carb binge. I stayed under maintenance calories for the day, but I ate a TON of carbs compared to the 60-80g I usually eat.
I put on so much water weight after that, it was unreal. My weight (at the scale, I'm not an idiot) went back up from 246 to 252, and I didn't get back down to 244 (where I should be based on CICO math) until. Yesterday. Brutal.
When people start low carb, they shed glycogen and a lot of water weight along with that. Replenishing glycogen adds a lot of water weight as well. Losing and gaining that water weight feels good (or bad), but is inconsequential. People who want to lose weight generally are aiming for body fat loss.
yeah, obviously. Just saying, seeing the scale spike so quickly and stay up for so long is a head trip. I knew I would shed it and that my real weight loss wasn't affected, but I didn't expect it to take a week to get ride of water gain from 1 day.4 -
And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!5
-
VintageFeline wrote: »And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!
This. I eat what many people would consider to be higher carbohydrate (averaging about 250 grams a day) and while I'm sure I've got more water in my body than someone who is doing keto, I don't carry a lot of water weight day-to-day unless it's a certain time of the month, I'm recovering from a really long run, or I've had a high sodium day.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!
agreed0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!
This. I eat what many people would consider to be higher carbohydrate (averaging about 250 grams a day) and while I'm sure I've got more water in my body than someone who is doing keto, I don't carry a lot of water weight day-to-day unless it's a certain time of the month, I'm recovering from a really long run, or I've had a high sodium day.
This. The only thing the impacts my water weight is exercise. Since I'm past menopause, I don't even have to deal with the hell of monthly fluctuations, thankfully.
Honestly, I just wish this would stop being a debate. It doesn't need to be one at all.
Diets are a matter of preference and what's best suited to an individual's circumstances, food likes/dislikes, personality, and goals. There's no single answer to satiety, no optimum macro mix.
Keto would be a disaster for me. I have familial hypercholesterolemia, and not only that, after a certain point (about 40-50 grams), I don't find fat satiating. For someone who finds potatoes not very filling, my diet would be a disaster, but it's perfect for me.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!
This. I eat what many people would consider to be higher carbohydrate (averaging about 250 grams a day) and while I'm sure I've got more water in my body than someone who is doing keto, I don't carry a lot of water weight day-to-day unless it's a certain time of the month, I'm recovering from a really long run, or I've had a high sodium day.
This. The only thing the impacts my water weight is exercise. Since I'm past menopause, I don't even have to deal with the hell of monthly fluctuations, thankfully.
Honestly, I just wish this would stop being a debate. It doesn't need to be one at all.
Diets are a matter of preference and what's best suited to an individual's circumstances, food likes/dislikes, personality, and goals. There's no single answer to satiety, no optimum macro mix.
Keto would be a disaster for me. I have familial hypercholesterolemia, and not only that, after a certain point (about 40-50 grams), I don't find fat satiating. For someone who finds potatoes not very filling, my diet would be a disaster, but it's perfect for me.
^^^100%
Anytime someone asks me which diet is better my response is, "Better for who?" Because as always IMO, it depends...8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!
This. I eat what many people would consider to be higher carbohydrate (averaging about 250 grams a day) and while I'm sure I've got more water in my body than someone who is doing keto, I don't carry a lot of water weight day-to-day unless it's a certain time of the month, I'm recovering from a really long run, or I've had a high sodium day.
This. The only thing the impacts my water weight is exercise. Since I'm past menopause, I don't even have to deal with the hell of monthly fluctuations, thankfully.
Honestly, I just wish this would stop being a debate. It doesn't need to be one at all.
Diets are a matter of preference and what's best suited to an individual's circumstances, food likes/dislikes, personality, and goals. There's no single answer to satiety, no optimum macro mix.
Keto would be a disaster for me. I have familial hypercholesterolemia, and not only that, after a certain point (about 40-50 grams), I don't find fat satiating. For someone who finds potatoes not very filling, my diet would be a disaster, but it's perfect for me.
Yeah, I'm starving on a low fat diet, but once I go past moderate fat I don't notice any additional benefits with appetite control.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And if you'd carried on eating carbs the water weight would have sorted itself out too. It's the switch from one extreme to the other. I'm basically moderate carb though I don't have a number I aim for or anything and I actually don't get much carb water fluctuation. Everything else fluctuation yes!
This. I eat what many people would consider to be higher carbohydrate (averaging about 250 grams a day) and while I'm sure I've got more water in my body than someone who is doing keto, I don't carry a lot of water weight day-to-day unless it's a certain time of the month, I'm recovering from a really long run, or I've had a high sodium day.
This. The only thing the impacts my water weight is exercise. Since I'm past menopause, I don't even have to deal with the hell of monthly fluctuations, thankfully.
Honestly, I just wish this would stop being a debate. It doesn't need to be one at all.
Diets are a matter of preference and what's best suited to an individual's circumstances, food likes/dislikes, personality, and goals. There's no single answer to satiety, no optimum macro mix.
Keto would be a disaster for me. I have familial hypercholesterolemia, and not only that, after a certain point (about 40-50 grams), I don't find fat satiating. For someone who finds potatoes not very filling, my diet would be a disaster, but it's perfect for me.
That's interesting! My fat threshold is about 40 grams as well, anything I eat above that makes no difference other than that it tastes good.0 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »No. Unless a "diet" is something that you can do for the rest of your life, when you stop: fat generally comes right back on. That's pretty much how and why most "diets" fail, most are generally unsustainable for the long term. Now if you have an underlying medical condition where a specific diet is better for you low carb/keto, gluten-free, etc, then that's fine as it's a long term healthy solution.
I'd argue that you probably just need a good "exit strategy", like transitioning to a Mediterranean diet. Water weight will return, because initial weight loss from keto is due to compartment shifts in water from the hypertonic effect of sugar, but there is no reason why body fat weight gain should occur if you properly transition to a whole grain, lower carb diet, while maintaining appropriate fitness.2 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »No. Unless a "diet" is something that you can do for the rest of your life, when you stop: fat generally comes right back on. That's pretty much how and why most "diets" fail, most are generally unsustainable for the long term. Now if you have an underlying medical condition where a specific diet is better for you low carb/keto, gluten-free, etc, then that's fine as it's a long term healthy solution.
I'd argue that you probably just need a good "exit strategy", like transitioning to a Mediterranean diet. Water weight will return, because initial weight loss from keto is due to compartment shifts in water from the hypertonic effect of sugar, but there is no reason why body fat weight gain should occur if you properly transition to a whole grain, lower carb diet, while maintaining appropriate fitness.
This is true, but if the Mediterranean diet is how someone wants to eat for the rest of their life, why not just lose weight eating that way?3 -
If your diet teaches you how to eat fewer calories per day, then you'll keep weight off. It doesn't matter if you go off "the diet" as long as you don't go back to eating 3000+ calories a day like most fat americans.2
-
Yes for me! It has really helped with my PCOS weight gain and energy levels. PCOS makes it difficult for my body to burn carbs and sugars as energy due to a crap insulin reuptake system so making my body burn a source that is actually able to be used has decreased my risk of diabetes and I feel much better.1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »No. Unless a "diet" is something that you can do for the rest of your life, when you stop: fat generally comes right back on. That's pretty much how and why most "diets" fail, most are generally unsustainable for the long term. Now if you have an underlying medical condition where a specific diet is better for you low carb/keto, gluten-free, etc, then that's fine as it's a long term healthy solution.
I'd argue that you probably just need a good "exit strategy", like transitioning to a Mediterranean diet. Water weight will return, because initial weight loss from keto is due to compartment shifts in water from the hypertonic effect of sugar, but there is no reason why body fat weight gain should occur if you properly transition to a whole grain, lower carb diet, while maintaining appropriate fitness.
This is true, but if the Mediterranean diet is how someone wants to eat for the rest of their life, why not just lose weight eating that way?
Well, personally speaking, the ketogenic diet has removed my hunger cues (caused by overproduction of insulin) and has given me motivation to continue, which some will refer to pejoratively as "the diet honeymoon" but lets remember, we have actual honeymoons for a reason -- to get marriage off on a strong foot, emotionally and physically connected, so that the couple can face the real world with its problems and challenges. Unexpected benefits have been greater focus and mental acuity (due to Acetyl CoA increases in the brain). I started the diet in July, thinking I was just going to eat cheese and meat and loose weight. I lost 25 lbs in 1.5 months (225-200), which made me start thinking, "I feel like I can start doing exercise again," whereas before, it felt like too much exertion and was frustrating.
Since then I've been doing strength training and a bit of cardio 6x a week, added intermittent fasting twice weekly (24 hrs each), now I'm swapping body fat for muscle, and slowly reducing overall weight. I don't think all of those positive changes would have happened with the Mediterranean diet alone (not a knock, it isn't designed for that, and the original NEJM paper shows no significant weight differences between it and the control group). So I credit the motivation, lack of hunger (which solved overeating for me), mental focus and confidence to begin an exercise program, all from the Keto Diet.
Plus as a medical scientist, I appreciate that it is a physiologically sound concept which leverages actual evolutionary responses to hunger, lack of available sugar, etc. Even though it is a fad, it's not a "fad diet" in the sense of being based on someone's hunch.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »No. Unless a "diet" is something that you can do for the rest of your life, when you stop: fat generally comes right back on. That's pretty much how and why most "diets" fail, most are generally unsustainable for the long term. Now if you have an underlying medical condition where a specific diet is better for you low carb/keto, gluten-free, etc, then that's fine as it's a long term healthy solution.
I'd argue that you probably just need a good "exit strategy", like transitioning to a Mediterranean diet. Water weight will return, because initial weight loss from keto is due to compartment shifts in water from the hypertonic effect of sugar, but there is no reason why body fat weight gain should occur if you properly transition to a whole grain, lower carb diet, while maintaining appropriate fitness.
This is true, but if the Mediterranean diet is how someone wants to eat for the rest of their life, why not just lose weight eating that way?
Well, personally speaking, the ketogenic diet has removed my hunger cues (caused by overproduction of insulin) and has given me motivation to continue, which some will refer to pejoratively as "the diet honeymoon" but lets remember, we have actual honeymoons for a reason -- to get marriage off on a strong foot, emotionally and physically connected, so that the couple can face the real world with its problems and challenges. Unexpected benefits have been greater focus and mental acuity (due to Acetyl CoA increases in the brain). I started the diet in July, thinking I was just going to eat cheese and meat and loose weight. I lost 25 lbs in 1.5 months (225-200), which made me start thinking, "I feel like I can start doing exercise again," whereas before, it felt like too much exertion and was frustrating.
Since then I've been doing strength training and a bit of cardio 6x a week, added intermittent fasting twice weekly (24 hrs each), now I'm swapping body fat for muscle, and slowly reducing overall weight. I don't think all of those positive changes would have happened with the Mediterranean diet alone (not a knock, it isn't designed for that, and the original NEJM paper shows no significant weight differences between it and the control group). So I credit the motivation, lack of hunger (which solved overeating for me), mental focus and confidence to begin an exercise program, all from the Keto Diet.
Plus as a medical scientist, I appreciate that it is a physiologically sound concept which leverages actual evolutionary responses to hunger, lack of available sugar, etc. Even though it is a fad, it's not a "fad diet" in the sense of being based on someone's hunch.
To clarify, are you planning to transition to the Mediterranean diet once you have finished weight loss? If so, do you anticipate problems once you begin feeling hungry?
I guess to me personally, the benefit of losing weight the way I plan to maintain is that it allows me to gradually learn what works for me and what doesn't so when I began maintaining all I was changing was my calorie goal.
It feels overwhelming to think about having to "master" a whole new way of eating and figure out satiety, meal timing, foods to prepare when transitioning into maintaining. Of course, that's just my personal impression. That doesn't mean other people couldn't make it work.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions