Pros and cons of a Keto Diet
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Pro: can help you control your epilepsy
Con: can be dangerous - pay close attention to your doctor & dietician
As far as I know, a ketogenic diet is not dangerous unless you have a problem with fat metabolism or possibly familial hypercholesterolemia. Sort of like me saying tree nuts and gluten are dangerous. They aren't really unless you have a tree nut allergy or celiac disease. Same goes for a very low carb diet.
Unless you are thinking of diabetic ketoacidosis? Thankfully that is not a risk unless one has T1D and a situation where insulin was very low so blood glucose AND ketones are very high - at the same time. Someone eating low carb will never experience that unless they are T1D and it is not well managed in an acute situation.
My doctor actually did recommemd low carb to me.
And my other doctor recommended less fat and higher carb. LOL 
There are also issues with causing/aggravating kidney disorders.
No. Ketosis does not cause kidney problems. It can benefit those with kidney issues from T2D though.
Ketogenic diets are not typically high protein.
I think you need to get out more.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world, that may be true, but for the typical dieter going to keto/LC. They're going High protein.
I think you are incorrect. From what I have seen, the vast majority of keto'ers follow moderate protein.
Even when I eat carnivore (all animal = almost zero carb) my protein is rarely above 25%.1 -
Been on it for a little while now. I did lose weight on Atkins but it was really touch and go and very sensitive to any overage in protein or carb. I think the macronutrient mix was borderline for me cuz i was turning any excess protein into sugar (glucogenesis). I was afraid to go over on fat so i probably upped the protein a little, but more lean protein (chicken breast, tuna) is not very satiating. The extra fats wrapped around the protein, e.g. skin on chicken thighs, tuna stuffed avocado, are very satisfying (to me) However, low carb before is the only diet I tend to lose weight on. I tend to be insulin resistant, so carbs really mess with my blood sugar. I'm not diagnosed but i'm likely pre diabetic (at 60 yrs old).
Just to clarify the "man as a grain eater" topic. Our ancestors were around were for about six million years, modern man evolved about 200,000 years ago, agriculture, which made grains plentiful, was developed about 12,000 years ago.
In modern times, cultures that existed primarily on animals and animal fats and fewer carbs had demonstrably less incidence of heart disease ("The Big Fat Surprise", Nina Teicholz).
I'm starting to lose significant weight; weight that has been on for over 10 years. Not only that, but my experience is much like that GlassAngyl. I haven't taken an NSAID (e.g. Alleve) for 2 weeks and my psoriatic arthritis seems gone. Yeah, the breath thing, but that goes away. I don't have a sugar/insulin "crash" after every meal. If you drink a lot of water, that's minimal. You can have a lot of delicious things, but not a lot of carbs. My body seems to have adapted to it relatively quickly.
I'm allowed 2000 calories a day and I'm targeting 70/20/10 fat / protein / carbs, so 10% carbs. That's low but that is 200 calories of carbs which is 50 g of carbs per day. A whole potato is only 37 g, so Tuscan soup would be below that is you have one serving and make it yourself and there is no added sugar. Most processed and restaurant versions of any recipe adds sugar, primarily to accommodate "american" palates. So as long i follow my diet the rest of the day, there are very few carbs I really CAN'T have. I had "real" eggs benedict yesterday, the english muffin is only 25g of carbs.
There are variants of the diet including "cycled" ketone and "targeted" ketone that allows higher portions of carbs carefully timed before workouts as long as you NEVER eat carbs and fats at the same time.
The diet does seem to work. The medical problems associated with carbs and sugars, and cooked and processed animal fats are quite extensive and serious. I feel getting them out of a diet is a good thing. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own biology.
I agree also with J72FIT, it may not be for everyone. More active people with less insulin resistance could probably have more carbs than i eat now, but this works for me.
Care to argue Palaeolithic grain use with an archaeologist?. We've been eating grains for 10s of thousands of years. Earliest evidence for flour manufacture is around 30,000 years old. Grain consumption increased with domestication, undoubtably, but actual grain consumption was far from a new thing. And there were plenty of other sources of carbohydrate available too. "Man the meat eater" has been thoroughly debunked.
(also, if by ancestors you mean first bipedal hominins, more like 4.5 million years ago)10 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.10 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.4 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
13 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
If what you say is true about carbs playing the major role in obesity, how do you explain "blue zones"?4 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
If what you say is true about carbs playing the major role in obesity, how do you explain "blue zones"?
1. I'm not saying all carbs are bad, just the overconsumption of refined and simple starches in the American diet are causing chronic insulin production and chronic inflammation.
2. It isn't me saying it, not my field of research, but other groups like the BMJ paper I cited.
3. These systems are very complicated and so multiple factors are at play, therefore any attempts at reductionism will be prone to overinterpretation. tread carefully.7 -
How on earth are any of us succeeding whilst not doing keto...8
-
-
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
That article says absolutely nothing about needing to eat a keto or even low carb diet. It just says saturated fats aren't the devil they were once thought to be. It also says people should walk for 22 mins a day and eat real food (which is excellent advice).7 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
If what you say is true about carbs playing the major role in obesity, how do you explain "blue zones"?
1. I'm not saying all carbs are bad, just the overconsumption of refined and simple starches in the American diet are causing chronic insulin production and chronic inflammation.
2. It isn't me saying it, not my field of research, but other groups like the BMJ paper I cited.
3. These systems are very complicated and so multiple factors are at play, therefore any attempts at reductionism will be prone to overinterpretation. tread carefully.
1. So even though plant based dieters are touted at the healthiest people (who eat 60-70% of their calories from carbs), and the blue zones are known to be the longest living, who eat 70-75% of their calories from carbs, that they will have chronic inflammation because insulin product will occur at higher rates because carbs?
Let's be honest here, are you honestly suggesting that fruits and milk (which are simple starches) are now causing chronic inflammation? Or do you think it's more plausible that overconsumptions of calories, whether it be refined carbohydrates, baked goods and fried foods?
2. CHD/CVD is driven by obesity, not by carb consumption. Again, the healthiest places on earth are all carb based.
3. While I agree our bodies are highly complex, we do know a lot about it. We know that chances of disease is severely diminished by maintaining a good body weight and exercising. In fact, there are studies supporting every single diet out there? Why, because they all work on some type of calorie restriction.
8 -
Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
The force (woo) is strong in this one The interesting aspect is this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have seen this paper throw out there, and just like in all previous instances it would appear as though the person citing it has not read it. 7 -
Look, it's understandable. Someone tries something (in this case keto), it works great, and so they believe it's the best way to go. They then proceed to preach to everyone about this new thing and how what anyone else is doing is wrong. Give them time...
Note: I don't think there is anything wrong with keto. Just not the be all end all...1 -
#1 I actually think we are saying the same thing here. My keto WOE is a means to loose weight quickly and to restore the out of whack insulin insensitivity in my body. My planned transition to a Mediterranean diet, with fruit (fiber), milk, fish, yogurt, whole grain carbs, tomatoes, etc. will happen when I'm close to my target weight of 180 lbs. Keto gave me a kick start. But no, I don't think we have to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do think that, when folks are at an appropriate BMI, 70% of cals should come from carbs. Maybe you've just lumped me in with paleo, I see keto as a tool, not a permanent dietary state. Curious, Are you vegetarian?
#2 here I would contend you're being rather simplistic. The controversial finding which is nicely summarized in that paper is that it's more complicated than that. Of course obiesity is bad, but many subjects in the Mediterranean diet arm didn't loose weight and still received the same CHD/CVD benefit. Hence the relationship is more complex and people are misled by "fat is bad" simple thinking.
#3 of course I agree. I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to cure brain cancer. That is to say, I appreciate how much we know but also how we often are surprised. Hence, a dose of humility is always a good thing.8 -
Look, it's understandable. Someone tries something (in this case keto), it works great, and so they believe it's the best way to go. They then proceed to preach to everyone about this new thing and how what anyone else is doing is wrong. Give them time...
Exactly.
When desperate people finally find something that works for them after years and years of failure, they're inspired and hopeful, for probably the first time in a long time. It's like a miracle to them. They want to sing from the rooftops. I was like that 3 years ago. I learned pretty quickly. They'll learn eventually. In the meantime, we'll hear the evangelism. It's the nature of the beast.5 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
The force (woo) is strong in this one The interesting aspect is this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have seen this paper throw out there, and just like in all previous instances it would appear as though the person citing it has not read it.JustRobby1 wrote: »Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
The force (woo) is strong in this one The interesting aspect is this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have seen this paper throw out there, and just like in all previous instances it would appear as though the person citing it has not read it.
Which part of my comment, specifically, gave you that impression?
0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
The force (woo) is strong in this one The interesting aspect is this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have seen this paper throw out there, and just like in all previous instances it would appear as though the person citing it has not read it.JustRobby1 wrote: »Keto is how much of mankind lived for tens of thousands of years.
It is one of the most natural ways of eating for the human body and the body works best on ketones not glucose, for example your heart and brain.
Pros:
Loads of fiber, vitamins and minerals from the high intake of leafy green vegetables and other low carb vegetables. I never ate so many veggies in my life until I went on Keto!
Sharpened clarity of thinking - no more brain fog due to too many carbs.
Ward off the risk of cancer with very low carbs.
No hungry feelings anymore, because there are no longer any swings of insulin and blood sugar as I used to experience on a carb based diet.
Sustained energy throughout the day, lots of energy!
No longer craving the things I used to need a fix for, like ice cream, chocolate, and so on.
Cons:
You do need to make an effort to keep some variety going across different meals, if you're prone to getting bored. Same with lots of things in life really.
You dont reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs. There are so many types of cancers, its ridiculous and at best keto has been preliminarily shown to be beneficial with some types of brain cancers along with formal treatment.
Prevention is different than treatment. I don't think you can say "you don't reduce cancer risk by eliminating carbs" but it is safe to say that there is currently a paucity of evidence. However, inferences can be made. On a typical, obesity causing American diet, overconsumption of carbs leads to chronic insulin production (due to insensitivity) which increases inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to cancer in many different sites. There is a pretty good evidence base for hypothesizing that reduction of carbs leads to reduction of insulin-mediated inflammation leads to reduction in overall cancer risk. However, at this point, it is merely a hypothesis. Unlike the effect of low carbs on athlerosclerosis, which there is stronger evidence for benefit.
The american diet is highly caloric. Obesity leads to all kinds of health problems, like chronic inflammation. Carbs do not cause, chronic inflammation. Assuming so ignorea the plethora of evidence around the benefits from increase plant consumption and the blue zones.
The modeling of cancer prevent ia based on rat studies and is way to preliminary to assess with humans.
A more likely, and more demonstrated case against cancer is maintain a lean body weight, stay active, have good genetics and eat a variety of nutrient dense foods, like fish, fruits and veggies.
Your last sentence is correct, but you also underestimate the role that carbs play. It is becoming clear now from the science that "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods" will lead to health improvements. Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
The force (woo) is strong in this one The interesting aspect is this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have seen this paper throw out there, and just like in all previous instances it would appear as though the person citing it has not read it.
Which part of my comment, specifically, gave you that impression?
It's called cherry picking. Attempting to draw correlations and extrapolating conclusions that I am sure the authors of the paper would not agree with if you were to ask them. The paper never mentions low carb diets or Keto once, as it deals specifically with fats.
So the reverse scientific method essentially, which is common among the Keto crowd. Maintain a position as valid first, and then desperately try to find evidence to justify it after the fact. That is not how it works.7 -
A couple of observations about the bolded part of your comments above. Keto/ LC dieters lose a significant amount of water weight up front but normalized over time, the fat loss is not any different than any other calories restricted method of dieting. It is the calorie deficit that caused the weight loss. Keto is just a path among many paths to get there. Given that you have IR issues, it is probably an effective path for you.#1 I actually think we are saying the same thing here. My keto WOE is a means to loose weight quickly and to restore the out of whack insulin insensitivity in my body. My planned transition to a Mediterranean diet, with fruit (fiber), milk, fish, yogurt, whole grain carbs, tomatoes, etc. will happen when I'm close to my target weight of 180 lbs. Keto gave me a kick start. But no, I don't think we have to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do think that, when folks are at an appropriate BMI, 70% of cals should come from carbs. Maybe you've just lumped me in with paleo, I see keto as a tool, not a permanent dietary state. Curious, Are you vegetarian?
#2 here I would contend you're being rather simplistic. The controversial finding which is nicely summarized in that paper is that it's more complicated than that. Of course obiesity is bad, but many subjects in the Mediterranean diet arm didn't loose weight and still received the same CHD/CVD benefit. Hence the relationship is more complex and people are misled by "fat is bad" simple thinking.
#3 of course I agree. I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to cure brain cancer. That is to say, I appreciate how much we know but also how we often are surprised. Hence, a dose of humility is always a good thing.
I can't ever imagine a scenario where I would think a diet of 70% carbs would be a good thing. The hierarchy of nutrients for max health and muscle mass preservation would be 1)protein 2)adequate fat for proper hormonal function 3) carbs with the rest. Just don't see how that could ever be accomplished with 70% carbs.
2 -
A couple of observations about the bolded part of your comments above. Keto/ LC dieters lose a significant amount of water weight up front but normalized over time, the fat loss is not any different than any other calories restricted method of dieting. It is the calorie deficit that caused the weight loss. Keto is just a path among many paths to get there. Given that you have IR issues, it is probably an effective path for you.#1 I actually think we are saying the same thing here. My keto WOE is a means to loose weight quickly and to restore the out of whack insulin insensitivity in my body. My planned transition to a Mediterranean diet, with fruit (fiber), milk, fish, yogurt, whole grain carbs, tomatoes, etc. will happen when I'm close to my target weight of 180 lbs. Keto gave me a kick start. But no, I don't think we have to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do think that, when folks are at an appropriate BMI, 70% of cals should come from carbs. Maybe you've just lumped me in with paleo, I see keto as a tool, not a permanent dietary state. Curious, Are you vegetarian?
#2 here I would contend you're being rather simplistic. The controversial finding which is nicely summarized in that paper is that it's more complicated than that. Of course obiesity is bad, but many subjects in the Mediterranean diet arm didn't loose weight and still received the same CHD/CVD benefit. Hence the relationship is more complex and people are misled by "fat is bad" simple thinking.
#3 of course I agree. I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to cure brain cancer. That is to say, I appreciate how much we know but also how we often are surprised. Hence, a dose of humility is always a good thing.
I can't ever imagine a scenario where I would think a diet of 70% carbs would be a good thing. The hierarchy of nutrients for max health and muscle mass preservation would be 1)protein 2)adequate fat for proper hormonal function 3) carbs with the rest. Just don't see how that could ever be accomplished with 70% carbs.
Oops, that was a mistype! 50% is what I meant. 45-65% is what is recommended by the Canadian food guide, for example.1 -
A couple of observations about the bolded part of your comments above. Keto/ LC dieters lose a significant amount of water weight up front but normalized over time, the fat loss is not any different than any other calories restricted method of dieting. It is the calorie deficit that caused the weight loss. Keto is just a path among many paths to get there. Given that you have IR issues, it is probably an effective path for you.#1 I actually think we are saying the same thing here. My keto WOE is a means to loose weight quickly and to restore the out of whack insulin insensitivity in my body. My planned transition to a Mediterranean diet, with fruit (fiber), milk, fish, yogurt, whole grain carbs, tomatoes, etc. will happen when I'm close to my target weight of 180 lbs. Keto gave me a kick start. But no, I don't think we have to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do think that, when folks are at an appropriate BMI, 70% of cals should come from carbs. Maybe you've just lumped me in with paleo, I see keto as a tool, not a permanent dietary state. Curious, Are you vegetarian?
#2 here I would contend you're being rather simplistic. The controversial finding which is nicely summarized in that paper is that it's more complicated than that. Of course obiesity is bad, but many subjects in the Mediterranean diet arm didn't loose weight and still received the same CHD/CVD benefit. Hence the relationship is more complex and people are misled by "fat is bad" simple thinking.
#3 of course I agree. I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to cure brain cancer. That is to say, I appreciate how much we know but also how we often are surprised. Hence, a dose of humility is always a good thing.
I can't ever imagine a scenario where I would think a diet of 70% carbs would be a good thing. The hierarchy of nutrients for max health and muscle mass preservation would be 1)protein 2)adequate fat for proper hormonal function 3) carbs with the rest. Just don't see how that could ever be accomplished with 70% carbs.
Oops, that was a mistype! 50% is what I meant. 45-65% is what is recommended by the Canadian food guide, for example.
Ah, makes sense now. I even find that to be a little high but attainable probably. I just don't think in terms of any priority on carbs. If I hit the other 2, carbs fall between 100 and 200 grams when I'm cutting and 200 and 300 grams when I'm at maintenance. They just matter the least as long as there is enough to fuel the energy level for my training.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions