Pros and cons of a Keto Diet
Options
Replies
-
JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.7 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.
Gee that is odd, considering directly before offering the citation you state "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods 'will lead to health improvements'". And then in the next breath "Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature [cites paper]"
It sounds like that is precisely what you were attempting to use the paper to justify, as it would to about any rational person that was to read what you typed.
Care to backpedal some more?
3 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.
Gee that is odd, considering directly before offering the citation you state "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods 'will lead to health improvements'". And then in the next breath "Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature [cites paper]"
It sounds like that is precisely what you were attempting to use the paper to justify, as it would to about any rational person that was to read what you typed.
Care to backpedal some more?
I state? That was a direct quote from the paper, hence the " " (but you read it right
Sometimes, when having a robust discussion, in good faith, 'backpedaling' is necessary. We all mis-speak from time-to-time. My characterization of PSU as "anti-keto" was unfair. I made some assumptions about his/her perspective based on a few posts. I personally think you might have done the same about me. But if you honestly feel you're debating in good faith, I will take your word for it.
I'm curious now, what is your current WOE and has it worked well for you? What would you suggest, based on your knowledge of the literature, for someone looking to loose about 20 more lbs?1 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.
Gee that is odd, considering directly before offering the citation you state "replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy high fat foods 'will lead to health improvements'". And then in the next breath "Sorry that you have an anti-keto perspective. If you'd like to read the literature [cites paper]"
It sounds like that is precisely what you were attempting to use the paper to justify, as it would to about any rational person that was to read what you typed.
Care to backpedal some more?
I state? That was a direct quote from the paper, hence the " " (but you read it right
Sometimes, when having a robust discussion, in good faith, 'backpedaling' is necessary. We all mis-speak from time-to-time. My characterization of PSU as "anti-keto" was unfair. I made some assumptions about his/her perspective based on a few posts. I personally think you might have done the same about me. But if you honestly feel you're debating in good faith, I will take your word for it.
I'm curious now, what is your current WOE and has it worked well for you? What would you suggest, based on your knowledge of the literature, for someone looking to loose about 20 more lbs?
Consume less calories and move more.0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.
Fixed...6 -
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.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
Actually had some time to digest the meta-analysis that you posted. It's not really saying exactly what you mentioned. It doesn't suggest that refined carbs cause insulin resistance. In fact, it says what I stated...
Under: A simple way to combat insulin resistance (chronically high levels of serum insulin) and inflammation
"Compared with physically inactive individuals, those who walk briskly at or above 150 min/week can increase life expectancy by 3.4–4.5 years independent of body weight.9 Regular brisk walking may also be more effective than running in preventing coronary disease. And just 30 min of moderate activity a day more than three times/week significantly improves insulin sensitivity and helps reverse insulin resistance (ie, lowers the chronically elevated levels of insulin that are associated with obesity) within months in sedentary middle-aged adults. This occurs independent of weight loss and suggests even a little activity goes a long way."
So overall, keeping weight in check, exercise and minimizing stress all improve health. Why because lean individuals tend to be more insulin sensitive (especially when body composition is good) and exercises also improves IS.
If you are discussing improvements in other metabolic markers, I could probably agree. But the same thing would happen if you replaced refined carbs with whole grains/fruits/veggies and if you replaced refined fats with omega 3's/UFA.
But for a large part, this analysis compares the SAD to Mediterranean. And like I mentioned, the SAD diet is highly caloric and low in activity tends to lead to obesity. So it's not really the specific foods, but the culmination of a poor diet, sedentary lifestyles, and high stress environments.
7 -
I'm curious now, what is your current WOE and has it worked well for you? What would you suggest, based on your knowledge of the literature, for someone looking to loose about 20 more lbs?
Here is what worked for me. In priority order for me, I concentrate on Calories --> Protein--> Fiber --> Carbs--> Fats. I tend to eat high carb (250 to 330g), moderate protein (140 to 180g) and lower fat (60g). Now you ask why? Simple, I am a volume eater. I am not satiated at all by fats. Carbs, particularly starches, are my go to for satiety (along with high proteins). Almost all my meals are protein + starch. When I do eat fats, it tends to be from quality red meats (angus ground beef, USDA choice filet, strip or sirloin), oily/dark fish (Salmon/Ahi Tuna), avocados (especially in guacamole form) and eggs. I started at 220 and now sit at 175 lbs. All my metabolic markers have improved. I am, and have never, been on any medications outside of zyrtec. I have maintained this weigh for 5 years. All of this while my wife has gone through hell with an autonomic disorder and in/out of hospitals for 7 years (the entirety of our marriage).
Now what diet would I suggest? None (there is an exception I will mentioned later). I recommend addressing calories first and modifying macros to figure out what has the greatest impact on satiety. I generally recommend higher protein while cutting and adequate fiber. So why is that.... protein and fiber are generally universal when it comes to satiety. Fats and carbs are individualistic. So I tell people to play around and thing about what foods they are filled up by.
The exceptions: if a person has IR, PCOS or diabetes, I unequivocally recommend controlling carbs. I generally recommend starting out between 80 to 120g and taper down based on results. So ironically, the ONLY diets I do recommend are those that people think I am against.
Side note: I know it may come off that I am anti-low carb sometimes, but I am more anti BS. There are benefits to be had from all diets. Denying that is denying science (not suggesting you are). As a nation, we spent too long promoting low fat. Now we are promoting high fat. And ironically, what will probably happen over the next 10 years, is we will find ourselves recognizing that we should be somewhere in the middle. Too often, people can only think extremes.9 -
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.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
Actually had some time to digest the meta-analysis that you posted. It's not really saying exactly what you mentioned. It doesn't suggest that refined carbs cause insulin resistance. In fact, it says what I stated...
Under: A simple way to combat insulin resistance (chronically high levels of serum insulin) and inflammation
"Compared with physically inactive individuals, those who walk briskly at or above 150 min/week can increase life expectancy by 3.4–4.5 years independent of body weight.9 Regular brisk walking may also be more effective than running in preventing coronary disease. And just 30 min of moderate activity a day more than three times/week significantly improves insulin sensitivity and helps reverse insulin resistance (ie, lowers the chronically elevated levels of insulin that are associated with obesity) within months in sedentary middle-aged adults. This occurs independent of weight loss and suggests even a little activity goes a long way."
So overall, keeping weight in check, exercise and minimizing stress all improve health. Why because lean individuals tend to be more insulin sensitive (especially when body composition is good) and exercises also improves IS.
If you are discussing improvements in other metabolic markers, I could probably agree. But the same thing would happen if you replaced refined carbs with whole grains/fruits/veggies and if you replaced refined fats with omega 3's/UFA.
But for a large part, this analysis compares the SAD to Mediterranean. And like I mentioned, the SAD diet is highly caloric and low in activity tends to lead to obesity. So it's not really the specific foods, but the culmination of a poor diet, sedentary lifestyles, and high stress environments.
I interpreted what was written as too many refined carbs leads to chronic inflammation (probably due to high blood glucose) and chronic(ally high) insulin production. It is thought that some with insulin resistance may have developed it due to chronically high insulin levels, with or without obesity, but that isn't discussed in that article either.
The paper does discus reduced CAD in high fat Mediterranean diets (41+ %) as compared to a "low fat" diet of 37%... I guess they would call moderate fat 39%? Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? LOL4 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.0 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.3 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.
+1 IR can develop without overweight/ obesity but that is not how the it happens in most cases. It is the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance1 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.
+1 IR can develop without overweight/ obesity but that is not how the it happens in most cases. It is the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
Which is why it is the #2 risk factor, just after genetics (and the one risk factor the person has the most control over).3 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
As @mmapags has stated, the exception not the rule...0 -
It’s really difficult to even for a health freak like me to live my life and follow a plan that's 70 to 80 percent fat, 10 percent carb, and 15 percent protein, as every single meal (for the most part) has to be planned and calculated. For most people, this will be the hardest part.2
-
It’s really difficult to even for a health freak like me to live my life and follow a plan that's 70 to 80 percent fat, 10 percent carb, and 15 percent protein, as every single meal (for the most part) has to be planned and calculated. For most people, this will be the hardest part.
You don't really have to hit those macros at each meal... or even every day. The bigger thing for keto is keeping carbs sub 50g. Protein ranges from 15 to 30% depending on your goals and activity levels. And fats can range from there.2 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.
+1 IR can develop without overweight/ obesity but that is not how the it happens in most cases. It is the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
True. It is not as common as obese getting it, but it does happen.0 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.
+1 IR can develop without overweight/ obesity but that is not how the it happens in most cases. It is the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
True. It is not as common as obese getting it, but it does happen.
Yep, my Uncle was never overweight or inactive and he developed diabetes. He is the one and only member of our family on either side to have had diabetes.1 -
Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.
+1 IR can develop without overweight/ obesity but that is not how the it happens in most cases. It is the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
True. It is not as common as obese getting it, but it does happen.
And it does also happen that people who never smoked a day in their life get lung cancer, doesn't change that smoking carries the highest risk of developing it with it.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Dude, it appears as though you're extrapolating here. Your presupposing I was using that paper to support keto. That is false. I was using it to argue that chronic overconsumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which was the point in dispute. That paper has nothing to do with keto.
Unfortunately, you make a false assumption, that A: people in favor of keto backfill their own preconceptions with cherry picked data, and B: sevas is on keto therefore, B=A, Sevas must be guilty of shoehorning data to fit his presuppositions. This is an example of affirming the consequent. Go back and confirm that your argument isn't based on a logical fallacy.Fixed...
As to the bolded, people can develop IR without obesity. Obesity (aka over consumption of food) is associated with IR. Obesity is not a proven cause of IR, as far as I have seen.
It is the #2 risk factor. The actual cause of IR and T2 diabetes (in other words, what makes the beta cells in the pancreas stop working properly) is still being studied.
+1 IR can develop without overweight/ obesity but that is not how the it happens in most cases. It is the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
True. It is not as common as obese getting it, but it does happen.
And it does also happen that people who never smoked a day in their life get lung cancer, doesn't change that smoking carries the highest risk of developing it with it.
Yes, I realize T2D happens in those who are obese more often than those who are not. I also know that smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer. The difference with lung cancer and smoking is that smoking causes lung cancer. Obesity does not cause T2D - there is only an association.
That association between weight and T2D is not as strong in other parts of the world outside of North America, like China and India. It appears as though some sort of lifestyle changes, often the type that leads to obesity such as lots of refined foods, lack of exercise, and stress is more relevant than weight in determining whether someone genetically prone to developing T2D will get T2D.
But I'm off topic... Keto is a good dietary tool for treating IR.1 -
So, I am not on a Keto Diet but I am playing with "low carbs" at the moment....I have also done a lot of research on Keto Diet. Why? Because I have had - for the last decade - a higher A1C value. I am pre-diebetic. I do not look anything like "pre-diabetic" but there was a time that I was 251lbs. That was something like six/seven years ago. I am 208lbs right now. 191lbs was my lowest. But, I feel really really really full and bloated when I eat carbs. Not talking about cake and pop tarts, necessarily. Just carbs. So, there is something in my body that does not work quite right. Whatever the heck "quite right" might mean. And, this is specific to me. I am simply sharing my experience.
I will tell you this.....
I dropped something like seven pounds in one week when I went down to max 65g Carbs a day for a week straight. Sure, we all know what that was. I then ate at a more normal carb level for a week and went back up those seven pounds. I then ate at 10g - 15g Carbs for four days and dropped five pounds. I did not feel full (and, to be clear....not talking about a good, satisfied full.....talking about full like I would pop if I even looked at more food) or bloated. It was really good. For me.
Now, I am *NOT* in the gym. When I am lifting heavy I need - based on my specific experience - Carbs. Heavy Squats or heavy Dead Lifts......on 10g of Carbs.....I believe that the young folks say something like "Oh, snap!" to that. I am not sure that I could make it through that training session were I to be in full ketosis. Others? Maybe. Me? Not at the moment. I would need to target/time my carb intake and learn how I respond to that and then come up with a plan that works well for me. We are all different.....so what I might find to work for me might not work for others. Or, maybe it would for some but not most. Who knows?!?!?!
Generally speaking, I am comfortable saying that lifting heavy is likely going to present a bit of a challenge for someone on a full Keto Diet. Sure - there are a few variations of the Keto Diet. I am talking about the Classic / Strict Keto Diet. The outcome might very likely be a bit different were you to explore the other variations (and I beleive that there are two for folks who train).
Anyway, what is more important to you? What are your true goals?
I would like to think - for me - that my health is more important than some Gym PRs! So, maybe Keto is for me at the 'cost' of heavy squats and heavy dead lifts. But, that would be for me. We are talking about you......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