To keto or not to
Options
Replies
-
xhunter561 wrote: »jane: because before keto i had been trying to run for about two years thinking that would help with weight loss and improve health. i studied and tried to do as others have taught me when running and i never did get improvements with my weight or health. basically i was forced to walk more than run stuck at about 170 lbs at 5'3. it took about a month on keto to get to a point where i could build distance and a few more months to have no tunnel vision. before i ate fruits and pastas thinking that would give me energy but it had only made it worse if eaten within 3 hours of working out.
sorry trying to get this annoy quote things to work
Running is only going to result in weight loss if it takes place in the context of a calorie deficit.
Lots of people find, when they start running, that they need to walk/run.1 -
russelljam08 wrote: »
Don't tell me what to do. Volek was DESTROYED by Alan Aragon in a debate a few years ago and was left DUMBFOUNDED. One of Volek's underlings got fired from the University of Tampa for FALSIFYING data. Take the blinders offrusselljam08 wrote: »It really did not make a lot of sense to me either. Try The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living for a really good keto and low carb book.
LOL the book written by Atkins Foundation funded "scientists" LOL ok. The delusion is real. Jimmy Moore was looking "slim" in his latest pics lol
You seem to be very anti-keto. Perhaps consider skipping these threads?
Phinney and Volek are prolific researchers in the low carb and ketogenic diets. To me it sort of makes sense that they added their knowledge to the last rewrite of the Atkins book. Who would you have preferred? Ornish?
It was more of a politely worded suggestion.
I think it was Taubes who went to a debate with Aragon, who then asked the lifting audience who they would rather have train them. No brainer there.
I have not seen the events you mentioned. If what you say is true, one unethical and dishonest person does not make a way of eating invalid. Vogel is an expert in the field. As I said, it makes sense for him to write in this area and not on some other duet like veganism.
To be fair, Alan Aragon is the most respected guy in the fitness and science industry, when he says something, he doesn't say it without backing it up.
Aragon knows his stuff. I was just diappointed that he took that dig at Taubes.... It was one of the only parts of the debate I could find online too.
Taubes is a writer, a good writer who has found some interesting topics, but he is no researcher.
Well when you make claims, you better have evidence. If Taubes stated things that were false or unproven, Aragon has every right to trash his theories. There are too many snake oil salesmen in the fitness industry, having a guy like Aragon is refreshing, he doesn't speculate and has no love for a certain fad diet....all he cares about are facts. If keto was proven to be the best diet in the world, then Aragon would certainly make a case for it, but it isn't the case and no diet is at this point.
Taubes'book Good Calories Bad Calories was well done. His latest book was more about finding data to fit his theory that sugar is THE source of obesity today. I don't think sugar is innocent but I don't think it is the only cause of obesity today.
I really wish I could have seen that debate. I have no idea what was said by either of them except the last couple of minutes.
0 -
I think people complicate *kitten* for no reason...You need to lose weight, eat less calories than you burn. That's it, it annoys me that people push their complicated diet when it is proven that no diet is superior. You can shove keto with all kinds of hearsay information, but the reality is that, it's not any better or worse than Intermittent Fasting, Paleo or whatever fad diet is out there these days. Studies have proven time over time that every diet all require the samething for fat loss...you need to be in a caloric deficit. I swear people fall in love with their diet so much, it's pathetic.
you can love your diet but you shouldn't be go crazy over it. diet is very important but so are a number of other things like works outs, managing stress, and personal time. diet is a portion of what makes you healthy but its the other little things we don't think about that affect our health far more. food defiantly should not be your center of the universe and only happiness. just eat want works for you and change if you need to and your a ok with it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »xhunter561 wrote: »
where did I say you had to do keto to loss weight? please highlight it. I personally don't care what method you use but as for the so called doctor if I listened to the vast majority of them I'd still be overweight, sick and on meds for depression and the pain. Doctors don't get more than a few hours of nutritional education and mainly only know how to treat symptoms not prevent symptoms. Most of them get Free stuff for pushing drugs off on people.xhunter561 wrote: »Keto is unnecessary unless you have health issues related to carbs, undisciplined with carbs, you have a photo shoot, job or whatever that requires you to lose weight fast in a short amount of time or if you simply just enjoy that type of diet. If you do keto simply because you think it's superior to any other diet... you are wrong, no diet is king...the only thing that matters in the end is that you eat less calories than you burn to lose weight unless you have a medical issue that makes losing fat harder than the rest of the population. In that case, you listen to your doctor's advice.
not really it can be very useful to cycle keto every so often for part of a year then switch just to give your body practice with ketones and glucose though i can relate to the health issues. too much simple carbs in a day normally causes me very bad pain both in my joints and nerves, that as well as headaches and everything else. though with keto people need to understand it's very important to get their veggies when cycling keto even after you are keto adapted. losing the weight is no good if your insides are torn to hell or develop a fatty liver because you were not careful. though when it comes to watching or measuring macros it makes it kinda easy sense your protein and carbs are set to a certain range depending on your own genetic and athletic needs. i find keto works best with less processed foods and at the min. 15g of fiber carbs from good sources.
So much bs, I don't even know where to start. As I stated before, unless you have MEDICAL condition that was told you by a professional doctor (which is what I said in my previous post) where it is required for you to give up on carbs, keto is unnecessary to lose weight and that is a fact. I knew one keto fanatic would pop out of the woodwork and start spewing nonsense... Your personal opinion does not make keto an advantage for fat loss. You may feel better with keto, but that's personal preference. I enjoy IF on a cut, because I enjoy eating bigger meal, does it mean that it's the most effective diet...hell no, it's just my preference. In terms of fat loss, IF isn't any better or worse than keto. Both give the same result calorie for calorie.
GottaBurnEm: Get sour all you want but the fact is still fact 1000 to 1200 is a general recommendation and with all the processing of food and drop in quality and nutrition that's why the recommendations keep going up over the years. I'm not trying to come off as trying to be mean it's just the vast majority of food out there is not very high in nutrition. Look at the food labels on your drinks and foods if you want to see, vast majority of the things out there have added sugars or alternatives like dextrose or sucrose. More and More sugar is added over the years to make the products sell more and is rampet in protein shakes, protein bars, and other 'enhancements' It's very hard to find a protein supplement or other 'healthy' item that doesn't have that much of the stuff. But anyways have a good rest of the day.
1000 to 1200 is no one's maintenance calories and certainly not mine, and I'm a good deal older than you.
Why do people present the false dichotomy of a keto diet vs. a sugar laden diet full of processed foods (not that there's anything wrong with these things in moderation), but since you're addressing me, I'll use my diet in comparison.
As usual, the person claiming processed foods are bad eats plenty of them.
Plus, as you know, one of the food groups highest in micros is also primarily carbs -- vegetables. I have some strong ideas about what a nutrient-rich diet involves (which I think you share!) and it's thus additionally ironic to be lectured about how only a poor diet makes you need more than 1000-1200, regardless of activity, etc.There is no one who weighs 120 pounds who runs 40 miles a week who needs to eat so little to maintain. You are stressing your body, risking muscle mass, and trust me, your bones won't thank you when you're older either.
This is true. Even assuming sedentary other than the running, that would be a loss of about 2 lb/week, probably. So the counting must be messed up in some way, which is a relief, as otherwise that would be a dangerous deficit.
If you look at her diary, she's tracking fairly well. Her entries all look accurate enough. Unless she's not logging everything.
This is a true case of a body that's been pushed to the limit and is jacked up on cortisol from the stress of over exercising and underfueling.
Maybe, but there are other explanations (as you note) and I prefer to assume the more positive one. I think it's REALLY hard to get to the point where you are maintaining on less (possibly far less) than 1200 as a healthy 120 lb person who is not that old, and so I am skeptical that one would feel fine but have such incredible adjustments, but clearly we don't know.
lemur: Mine is likely genetics given the females in my direct blood line normally don't need much in the ways of food. But I my main concerns are on the macros ranges but not going to go crazy to keep them perfect just keep them in range. But carbs and protein are fixed macros with 20g-30g carbs/ 90g-125g protein from the cleanest sources i can get. despite the numbers I like testing new things to see what works best for me and I still have enough to work around with before I need to do any real building back up. Normally my body signals for the protein really well though it craves healthy fats more (wanting avacodo, butter, ect)
Burn: No I can assure you my hormones have never been better I would not be meds free now if I wasn't. That and my cycle would be off and it's hitting the same range each month.
side steel: Hi0 -
xhunter561 wrote: »I'm posting for info purposes.
It's an article by Vince Gironda from 1980. Ketosis was used by bodybuilders to cut up for contests up to around the early 80s when the trend shifted more toward a gradual slow weight loss by a lower calorie balanced diet.
Ketosis was done by eating only meat, tuna fish, eggs with zero carb except for a small salad or vegetable to help digestion. Unlimited amounts of meat could be eaten. As long as you just ate meat you didn't have to count calories.
Keto sticks were used to test the urine to determine if and when the body entered ketosis. Ketosis made the body use fat stores for energy (since no carbs were eaten) and spared muscle loss.
Training was 5-6 days a week of high volume bodybuilding. Cardio was done several times a week to burn additional calories.
Gironda describes using this diet for long periods of time. He must have been quite a guy because it becomes unpleasant unless you really like meat. It also is stressful on the body both physically and mentally due to the extremely low carbs allowed. Constipation could be a problem as very little fiber is eaten.
Gironda used this diet during his competitive days in the 1940s to get very ripped. He became so ripped for his era that he was considered TOO ripped. The standard for that time was Steve Reeves who was not ripped but probably around 12% bodyfat.
Arnold Schwarzenegger used this same diet.
Enjoy.
unlimited protein would likely kick them out of ketosis because the body would convert any surplus into glucose. Yes body builders would use it and some still do but they normally cycle out at the end so that the glucose would get into the muscles and given it stores a little more water with it make them look fuller. But they still would have to count calories or macros (whichever worked best for them) because upping the protein and fat more than their bodies needed would make them put on a few pounds unless they did gear. there cardio is not what were would consider cardio given they could walk on a treadmill and because of the muscle get their heart rate up. But if a person could handle it they could do it with more veggies because you can eat as much veggies like spinich, kale, and a few more without worrying about falling out of keto. vegans can even do keto if they want though it would be very difficult sense they could only eat veggies with more complex carbs than simple carbs. If you get your veggies in you don't have to worry about getting backed up.
Protein only converts to glucose through glucenogenisis when it has to; its no different than fats converting to glucose. Its a demand driven process, not a supply driven process.
And there is really no evidence that demonstrates when or if a person can be kicked out of ketosis by eating protein. Thats a myth promoted by Jimmy Moore.
I agree that protein does not turn to glucose. A common misconception. But it can reduce your level of ketones when eating very high levels of protein of well over 200g. It is not something people need to worry about unless they are doing the classical ketogenic diet for a medical reason like epilepsy. For someone eating keto to help with weight loss, it should be no problem, plus the thermogenesis effect of protein may even assist with weight loss a small amount.
1 -
I'm posting for info purposes.
It's an article by Vince Gironda from 1980. Ketosis was used by bodybuilders to cut up for contests up to around the early 80s when the trend shifted more toward a gradual slow weight loss by a lower calorie balanced diet.
Ketosis was done by eating only meat, tuna fish, eggs with zero carb except for a small salad or vegetable to help digestion. Unlimited amounts of meat could be eaten. As long as you just ate meat you didn't have to count calories.
Keto sticks were used to test the urine to determine if and when the body entered ketosis. Ketosis made the body use fat stores for energy (since no carbs were eaten) and spared muscle loss.
Training was 5-6 days a week of high volume bodybuilding. Cardio was done several times a week to burn additional calories.
Gironda describes using this diet for long periods of time. He must have been quite a guy because it becomes unpleasant unless you really like meat. It also is stressful on the body both physically and mentally due to the extremely low carbs allowed. Constipation could be a problem as very little fiber is eaten.
Gironda used this diet during his competitive days in the 1940s to get very ripped. He became so ripped for his era that he was considered TOO ripped. The standard for that time was Steve Reeves who was not ripped but probably around 12% bodyfat.
Arnold Schwarzenegger used this same diet.
Enjoy.
And then came the low fat phase....
Good article. Thanks for posting.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions