Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Keto diet = good or bad
Replies
-
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.
You know, 88.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I agree that LDL-C can be associated with some health issues. I do not think there is evidence to say that LDL is not beneficial to most people - it is essential to life. ApoB is a better indicator of possible health problems (CVD). Agreed ... These are indicators though, not causes of bad health.
I think you may be putting some words in my mouth. I discussed the impact keto usually has on lipids in response to a question. Up thread, I think I talked about some carbs tending to have a larger negative impact on health - mainly processed and refined carbs. A diet rich in veggies and whole foods is often great for people. Not all carbs are created equal just like not all fats and proteins are equally healthy or less healthy.
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You speak in generalities when in reality there is huge variation in individual response. Similarly, you see this in training as well. And realistically, if you want to speak in generalities, all diets that induce weight loss, provide those results. Unfortunately, like 99% of those low carb studies are weight loss. So you can't so much attribute the changes in metabolic markers to weight loss or diet itself.
Now if the diet helps you lose weight, than there is your benefit. But i got all those benefits with a high carb high sugsr diet with processied carbs and fats.
My triglycerides went from 220 to 40, my HDLs doubled, my A1C is like 4.2. My LDLs dropped 30 points (thanks genetics).
I realize there is a wide response to diets. This is why generalities are used. I can't say that those born on a Tuesday under a full moon will have a good response, but those born within ear shot of a dog barking won't. All we can say is most, or a few or list a few actual case studies or results.
Yes, most (not 99% - that is opinion) of low carb studies involve weight loss, possibly because people tend to lose weight when eating low carb. There are some that don't, and they show health improvement, mainly for those with metabolic syndrome, when using the diet compared to not.
No one is arguing that weight loss and exercise will do the same thing for most people. You can stop repeating this, it is agreed upon. But it is not an adequate argument to prove that lchf is the same as any diet... And yes, we are aware that there are other healthy diets out there that will do the same thing. I have not proclaimed keto as king if the castle, it is just a healthy diet for many, beyond weight loss effects.
Most don't lose weight on lchf diets. Just like other diets, most fail to lose and sustain weight. They have the same 80-90% failure rate as other diets.
Also, if lchf or keto alone really helped with metabolic markers, than people could stay obese and just follow the diet and have sweeping improvements to their metabolic markers. This doesn't happen. If it did, there would be plenty of evidence to support.8 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.
You know, 88.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I agree that LDL-C can be associated with some health issues. I do not think there is evidence to say that LDL is not beneficial to most people - it is essential to life. ApoB is a better indicator of possible health problems (CVD). Agreed ... These are indicators though, not causes of bad health.
I think you may be putting some words in my mouth. I discussed the impact keto usually has on lipids in response to a question. Up thread, I think I talked about some carbs tending to have a larger negative impact on health - mainly processed and refined carbs. A diet rich in veggies and whole foods is often great for people. Not all carbs are created equal just like not all fats and proteins are equally healthy or less healthy.
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You speak in generalities when in reality there is huge variation in individual response. Similarly, you see this in training as well. And realistically, if you want to speak in generalities, all diets that induce weight loss, provide those results. Unfortunately, like 99% of those low carb studies are weight loss. So you can't so much attribute the changes in metabolic markers to weight loss or diet itself.
Now if the diet helps you lose weight, than there is your benefit. But i got all those benefits with a high carb high sugsr diet with processied carbs and fats.
My triglycerides went from 220 to 40, my HDLs doubled, my A1C is like 4.2. My LDLs dropped 30 points (thanks genetics).
I realize there is a wide response to diets. This is why generalities are used. I can't say that those born on a Tuesday under a full moon will have a good response, but those born within ear shot of a dog barking won't. All we can say is most, or a few or list a few actual case studies or results.
Yes, most (not 99% - that is opinion) of low carb studies involve weight loss, possibly because people tend to lose weight when eating low carb. There are some that don't, and they show health improvement, mainly for those with metabolic syndrome, when using the diet compared to not.
No one is arguing that weight loss and exercise will do the same thing for most people. You can stop repeating this, it is agreed upon. But it is not an adequate argument to prove that lchf is the same as any diet... And yes, we are aware that there are other healthy diets out there that will do the same thing. I have not proclaimed keto as king if the castle, it is just a healthy diet for many, beyond weight loss effects.
Most don't lose weight on lchf diets. Just like other diets, most fail to lose and sustain weight. They have the same 80-90% failure rate as other diets.
Also, if lchf or keto alone really helped with metabolic markers, than people could stay obese and just follow the diet and have sweeping improvements to their metabolic markers. This doesn't happen. If it did, there would be plenty of evidence to support.
That would be because people tend to lose weight when eating low carb. It confounds things.
In diet trials, those eating keto tend to lose more because they naturally eat less that higher carb diets. If they eat exactly the same calories, sure, they will not lose more (or much more) weight than the other diets, but when calories are not controlled, low carbers often lose faster.8 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.
You know, 88.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I agree that LDL-C can be associated with some health issues. I do not think there is evidence to say that LDL is not beneficial to most people - it is essential to life. ApoB is a better indicator of possible health problems (CVD). Agreed ... These are indicators though, not causes of bad health.
I think you may be putting some words in my mouth. I discussed the impact keto usually has on lipids in response to a question. Up thread, I think I talked about some carbs tending to have a larger negative impact on health - mainly processed and refined carbs. A diet rich in veggies and whole foods is often great for people. Not all carbs are created equal just like not all fats and proteins are equally healthy or less healthy.
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You speak in generalities when in reality there is huge variation in individual response. Similarly, you see this in training as well. And realistically, if you want to speak in generalities, all diets that induce weight loss, provide those results. Unfortunately, like 99% of those low carb studies are weight loss. So you can't so much attribute the changes in metabolic markers to weight loss or diet itself.
Now if the diet helps you lose weight, than there is your benefit. But i got all those benefits with a high carb high sugsr diet with processied carbs and fats.
My triglycerides went from 220 to 40, my HDLs doubled, my A1C is like 4.2. My LDLs dropped 30 points (thanks genetics).
I realize there is a wide response to diets. This is why generalities are used. I can't say that those born on a Tuesday under a full moon will have a good response, but those born within ear shot of a dog barking won't. All we can say is most, or a few or list a few actual case studies or results.
Yes, most (not 99% - that is opinion) of low carb studies involve weight loss, possibly because people tend to lose weight when eating low carb. There are some that don't, and they show health improvement, mainly for those with metabolic syndrome, when using the diet compared to not.
No one is arguing that weight loss and exercise will do the same thing for most people. You can stop repeating this, it is agreed upon. But it is not an adequate argument to prove that lchf is the same as any diet... And yes, we are aware that there are other healthy diets out there that will do the same thing. I have not proclaimed keto as king if the castle, it is just a healthy diet for many, beyond weight loss effects.
Most don't lose weight on lchf diets. Just like other diets, most fail to lose and sustain weight. They have the same 80-90% failure rate as other diets.
Also, if lchf or keto alone really helped with metabolic markers, than people could stay obese and just follow the diet and have sweeping improvements to their metabolic markers. This doesn't happen. If it did, there would be plenty of evidence to support.
That would be because people tend to lose weight when eating low carb. It confounds things.
In diet trials, those eating keto tend to lose more because they naturally eat less that higher carb diets. If they eat exactly the same calories, sure, they will not lose more (or much more) weight than the other diets, but when calories are not controlled, low carbers often lose faster.
There isn't extra fat loss in this diets. And most of the studies have poor controls on the low fat side. This doesn't even take into consideration that there is a whole middle ground that doesn't get discussed often.6 -
Low carbers often lose faster at first.
Part of the problem is they do something like keto vs low fat (defined as below 30%, which isn't even low fat) and often fail to control for protein.
The person doing keto has to cut out lots of foods they were eating and totally revise their diet, and it takes a while to learn how to overeat again when eating a new way without your usual high cal foods.
The person eating less than 30% fat basically eats the same diet but with less oil and butter and some leaner cuts of meat.
Even without the water weight drop advantage (which is another part of it), OF COURSE the keto person would lose more initially. The advantage would likely go away over a longer period of time, and that's what happens.
I'll compare this to when I wasn't even trying to lose weight but went 100% plant based for Lent and felt full and satisfied but dropped quite a bit of weight. The reason wasn't that 100% plant based is some ideal weight loss diet, it's that the foods I tended to overeat included dairy or eggs, and it took a while to find what I would overeat eating in this totally new way.17 -
I tried keto for a couple weeks. And the more I tried to learn about it, the more complicated it got. There are a lot of conflicting opinions about it, yet only so much actual research.
But basically, here's what I found: You need to commit to it for a couple months, apparently your body doesn't adjust for a few weeks. You can't really just try it out for a while. It's not just about eating low carbs, you need to watch out for the keto flu and make sure you get enough electrolytes. It made me very thirsty, I had to drink almost twice the water I did before. You can't have cheat days, it's not advised to go in and out of ketosis very often because it takes your body so long to adjust. My workouts suffered greatly and I didn't want to wait months for my body to adjust and I could have a decent workout again. 95% of the things in a grocery store have high carbs, there were about 3-4 isles that actually had food I could eat. Going out to eat was not very exciting, it usually consisted of meat and vegetables, I never felt very satisfied after.
The people that do it swear by it and think it's the best thing ever and love to tell you how great it is and to justify everything that might be wrong with it. It is good for some people but not for everybody, like a lot of things.
You need to eat enough fat to keep you feeling full, but not too much or too little. So you basically need to log all of your food to track your carbs and fat anyway, you might as well just go for a calorie deficit. I found when I got rid of most of my carbs I was under my calorie goal anyway. I got tired of eating just protein and fat, it wasn't that I was no longer hungry, I just got bored of the food I was eating so I ate less.10 -
Roadie2000 wrote: »The people that do it swear by it and think it's the best thing ever and love to tell you how great it is and to justify everything that might be wrong with it. It is good for some people but not for everybody, like a lot of things.
This sums it up fairly well...
4 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.
It was simplified language to refer to a lipid panel.
The statement was not about LDL-c not being a lipid.2 -
I am not an expert but I think each person is different and what works for one person may or may not work for a different person. I think if keto works for you go for it and if you try it and it turns out not to be your thing, don’t knock it down for other people it works for. Just find your own thing. IMHO keto isn’t a sustainable realistic thing for me. But for others it is.6
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.
It was simplified language to refer to a lipid panel.
The statement was not about LDL-c not being a lipid.
It was stated that lipids are affected by ketosis.
Instead of countering that claim, you've moved on to skepticism of a particular lipid as diagnostic.
By moving the goal post, it seems you're conceding the point: ketosis has an impact on lipids compared to other isocaloric diets.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.
It was simplified language to refer to a lipid panel.
The statement was not about LDL-c not being a lipid.
It was stated that lipids are affected by ketosis.
Instead of countering that claim, you've moved on to skepticism of a particular lipid as diagnostic.
By moving the goal post, it seems you're conceding the point: ketosis has an impact on lipids compared to other isocaloric diets.
I was saying yes, lipids are generally affected by ketosis, usually for the better, although LDL-c can go up in some. What I am questioning is whether LDL-c is a very good indicator of anything having to do with heart disease. As far as I can tell, higher LDL is an issue when triglycerides are high, HDL is low, BP and BG and insulin is high, LDL pattern size is poor, and CRP is high. Having a higher LDL when everything else is improving (generally speaking) is has not been shown to be a bad thing in any study.
This is an okay look at isocaloric diets, although not very long.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1368980/
Virta Health is one of the longer ketogenic studies, but it did involve weight loss for most participants.
https://blog.virtahealth.com/blood-lipid-changes-with-ketogenic-diet/
So yes, keto has an impact on lipids and it is usually good.5 -
I started Keto in May 2017 when I was 34, 5 ft tall, and 185 pounds. I work with kids so I run all day and just could not manage to lose anything strictly by counting calories. I had a wake up moment, found Keto and lost 45 lbs. I’ve gone off once, using more of a paleo approach and felt poorly. Bottom line, if you find what works for you and makes you feel good, that’s what is important. I’m between a size 4 and 6 now (even though to look at charts I’m still over weight) I exercise daily, and I feel amazing. You really should research so you don’t mess up or have side effects and whatever you try think of it as your way of eating, not a diet to be on.
3 -
joleenstamour8651 wrote: »I started Keto in May 2017 when I was 34, 5 ft tall, and 185 pounds. I work with kids so I run all day and just could not manage to lose anything strictly by counting calories. I had a wake up moment, found Keto and lost 45 lbs. I’ve gone off once, using more of a paleo approach and felt poorly. Bottom line, if you find what works for you and makes you feel good, that’s what is important. I’m between a size 4 and 6 now (even though to look at charts I’m still over weight) I exercise daily, and I feel amazing. You really should research so you don’t mess up or have side effects and whatever you try think of it as your way of eating, not a diet to be on.
even with keto you have to be in a deficit if you dont count calories your body does. you cannot eat as much as you want on keto and lose it doesnt work that way, nor does any other way of eating. if you arent in a deficit you wont lose. many here have gained weight doing keto because they ate too much.
7 -
even with keto you have to be in a deficit if you dont count calories your body does. you cannot eat as much as you want on keto and lose it doesnt work that way, nor does any other way of eating. if you arent in a deficit you wont lose. many here have gained weight doing keto because they ate too much.
Absolutely, I should have specified. I meant that calorie counting alone (even with whole/healthy food choices) did not work for me. I think that is probably why I prefer this way of eating, I don’t have to try hard or feel hungry to be in a deficit. Nor do I deal with the energy drain I felt before.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.
It was simplified language to refer to a lipid panel.
The statement was not about LDL-c not being a lipid.
It was stated that lipids are affected by ketosis.
Instead of countering that claim, you've moved on to skepticism of a particular lipid as diagnostic.
By moving the goal post, it seems you're conceding the point: ketosis has an impact on lipids compared to other isocaloric diets.
I was saying yes, lipids are generally affected by ketosis, usually for the better, although LDL-c can go up in some. What I am questioning is whether LDL-c is a very good indicator of anything having to do with heart disease. As far as I can tell, higher LDL is an issue when triglycerides are high, HDL is low, BP and BG and insulin is high, LDL pattern size is poor, and CRP is high. Having a higher LDL when everything else is improving (generally speaking) is has not been shown to be a bad thing in any study.
This is an okay look at isocaloric diets, although not very long.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1368980/
Virta Health is one of the longer ketogenic studies, but it did involve weight loss for most participants.
https://blog.virtahealth.com/blood-lipid-changes-with-ketogenic-diet/
So yes, keto has an impact on lipids and it is usually good.
Well since you're acknowledging the point and moving on...
Not sure the point of a weight loss study. At best, if a weight loss scenario involves worsening lipids, it is a very bad idea. Frankly though, improving almost any health marker is likely with a deficit diet.2 -
I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.4
-
trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
49 lbs since october? how low are your calories?0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
49 lbs since october? how low are your calories?
He said 27 lbs since October.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
49 lbs since october? how low are your calories?
He said 27 lbs since October.
he said 49 lbs total but 27 on keto. while it says he started keto AND IF in october,it doesnt clarify how far after the low calorie diet he started the keto and IF. maybe he can clarify that
0 -
trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
@trailjunkey those are awesome Keto results and similar to what I have experienced since Oct 2014.
Now at 68 my health and health markers continue to improve. My long term health issue has been the side effects of the Ankylosing Spondylitis form of arthritis. It has taken a long time but I am seeing some reversing of the ankylosing spondylitis which makes driving and most everything easier to do due to joints starting to move a few degrees in some areas.
While I am down a much needed 50 pounds I had no weight loss agenda but just to improve all of my health markers over time and to manage my pain levels without Rx Meds. I continue to maintain the way way I lost weight eating 3,000-4,000 calories daily. Now that I can walk any distance I wish and do not use power shopping carts any more I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
About a month ago I started eating some of fruit and whole food carb sources (no processed foods) after being off that for 4 years. My Blood Pressure started to drift up, headaches started to return and the worse of all my pitting edema in my lower legs returned. These are all gone now that I am back to keeping my daily carbs down to around 50 grams daily.
Best of continued success.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
...I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
Care to share this amazing study?4 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
49 lbs since october? how low are your calories?
No, 49 pounds since Jan. 1 of 2018. 27lbs on Keto since the end of October. Sorry for the confusion.0 -
trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
Hey, guess I need to clarify...sorry. 49 pounds total since Jan 1. 2018 but 27 of those came since the end of October when I started Keto.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
@trailjunkey those are awesome Keto results and similar to what I have experienced since Oct 2014.
While I am down a much needed 50 pounds I had no weight loss agenda but just to improve all of my health markers over time and to manage my pain levels without Rx Meds. I continue to maintain the way way I lost weight eating 3,000-4,000 calories daily. Now that I can walk any distance I wish and do not use power shopping carts any more I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
4,000 calories is a lot of calories for 68 year old to burn in a day with just walking, not running.
I'd also be interested in what study shows a 250 calorie change in metabolism for ketosis. It would tend to go against most of the literature on the subject I've ever seen.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
...I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
Care to share this amazing study?
https://everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/diet/study-shows-how-low-carb-diets-may-lead-weight-loss/1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
...I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
Care to share this amazing study?
https://everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/diet/study-shows-how-low-carb-diets-may-lead-weight-loss/
It was 209 greater calories in TDEE. There was no difference in Resting Expenditure, which is what a keto burn would imply.
Even that claim seems to be based on assuming the calorie intake for the groups are accurate. Yet this wasn't any kind of metabolic ward study. Given observations in wards, it is more likely the low carb group was eating more than reported.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
...I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
Care to share this amazing study?
https://everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/diet/study-shows-how-low-carb-diets-may-lead-weight-loss/
That was a twenty-week study and the article itself discloses that other studies have shown different results. Why would this particular study make you "sure" that you're burning more calories while it's obviously still not established and replicated?9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
@trailjunkey those are awesome Keto results and similar to what I have experienced since Oct 2014.
While I am down a much needed 50 pounds I had no weight loss agenda but just to improve all of my health markers over time and to manage my pain levels without Rx Meds. I continue to maintain the way way I lost weight eating 3,000-4,000 calories daily. Now that I can walk any distance I wish and do not use power shopping carts any more I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
4,000 calories is a lot of calories for 68 year old to burn in a day with just walking, not running.
I'd also be interested in what study shows a 250 calorie change in metabolism for ketosis. It would tend to go against most of the literature on the subject I've ever seen.
But the 3000 calories days may make things average out.
If you are new here Oct 2014 on a hunch I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grain. Then I learned about Keto and started to keeping my carbs just under 50 daily. It was for pain management and to dodge the risks associated with Enbrel injection usage long term that I was planning to start in Nov 2014. I read a number of cancer protocols just using food hoping to lower my increased risk from the Enbrel. I was in a very poor state of health at that time and needed help just to get and out of cars.
Just 30 days later my new Way Of Eating was dropping my 40 years of high pain levels so I told the MD's that I would not be starting Enbrel injections just yet. Now I have much less pain than I can ever remember in my life with no Rx Med usage.
From time to time when setting at McDonalds I go online and guesstimate my calories but I do not normally track or count anything so there are no logs but I do weigh twice each morning to track my hydration levels.
As noted I am not in the weight loss mindset and never plan to do so. I eat the WOE mentioned above for my health. I eat when I get hungry until I want to stop eating. Keto somehow seemed to fix my disorder eating that included cakes, pies, ice cream and the likes. No cravings brings a level of eating freedom I never knew until I was 63. While some say Keto can not fix their health concerns and I am sure they are correct I know how Keto is helping me recover my health. My main long term focus is to eat in a way that gives me the potential to live to be 110 walking and talking the entire way. In fact I have invited a few to my 110th Birthday Bash.
Best to your health as well. MFP is an awesome site with something for everyone.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
@trailjunkey those are awesome Keto results and similar to what I have experienced since Oct 2014.
While I am down a much needed 50 pounds I had no weight loss agenda but just to improve all of my health markers over time and to manage my pain levels without Rx Meds. I continue to maintain the way way I lost weight eating 3,000-4,000 calories daily. Now that I can walk any distance I wish and do not use power shopping carts any more I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
4,000 calories is a lot of calories for 68 year old to burn in a day with just walking, not running.
I'd also be interested in what study shows a 250 calorie change in metabolism for ketosis. It would tend to go against most of the literature on the subject I've ever seen.
But the 3000 calories days may make things average out.
If you are new here Oct 2014 on a hunch I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grain. Then I learned about Keto and started to keeping my carbs just under 50 daily. It was for pain management and to dodge the risks associated with Enbrel injection usage long term that I was planning to start in Nov 2014. I read a number of cancer protocols just using food hoping to lower my increased risk from the Enbrel. I was in a very poor state of health at that time and needed help just to get and out of cars.
Just 30 days later my new Way Of Eating was dropping my 40 years of high pain levels so I told the MD's that I would not be starting Enbrel injections just yet. Now I have much less pain than I can ever remember in my life with no Rx Med usage.
From time to time when setting at McDonalds I go online and guesstimate my calories but I do not normally track or count anything so there are no logs but I do weigh twice each morning to track my hydration levels.
As noted I am not in the weight loss mindset and never plan to do so. I eat the WOE mentioned above for my health. I eat when I get hungry until I want to stop eating. Keto somehow seemed to fix my disorder eating that included cakes, pies, ice cream and the likes. No cravings brings a level of eating freedom I never knew until I was 63. While some say Keto can not fix their health concerns and I am sure they are correct I know how Keto is helping me recover my health. My main long term focus is to eat in a way that gives me the potential to live to be 110 walking and talking the entire way. In fact I have invited a few to my 110th Birthday Bash.
Best to your health as well. MFP is an awesome site with something for everyone.
Seems a lot of under powered statistics in proportion to the claimed causative, but alright. Nice you're doing better now than you were, whatever the attribution.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trailjunkey wrote: »I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.
@trailjunkey those are awesome Keto results and similar to what I have experienced since Oct 2014.
While I am down a much needed 50 pounds I had no weight loss agenda but just to improve all of my health markers over time and to manage my pain levels without Rx Meds. I continue to maintain the way way I lost weight eating 3,000-4,000 calories daily. Now that I can walk any distance I wish and do not use power shopping carts any more I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.
4,000 calories is a lot of calories for 68 year old to burn in a day with just walking, not running.
I'd also be interested in what study shows a 250 calorie change in metabolism for ketosis. It would tend to go against most of the literature on the subject I've ever seen.
But the 3000 calories days may make things average out.
If you are new here Oct 2014 on a hunch I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grain. Then I learned about Keto and started to keeping my carbs just under 50 daily. It was for pain management and to dodge the risks associated with Enbrel injection usage long term that I was planning to start in Nov 2014. I read a number of cancer protocols just using food hoping to lower my increased risk from the Enbrel. I was in a very poor state of health at that time and needed help just to get and out of cars.
Just 30 days later my new Way Of Eating was dropping my 40 years of high pain levels so I told the MD's that I would not be starting Enbrel injections just yet. Now I have much less pain than I can ever remember in my life with no Rx Med usage.
From time to time when setting at McDonalds I go online and guesstimate my calories but I do not normally track or count anything so there are no logs but I do weigh twice each morning to track my hydration levels.
As noted I am not in the weight loss mindset and never plan to do so. I eat the WOE mentioned above for my health. I eat when I get hungry until I want to stop eating. Keto somehow seemed to fix my disorder eating that included cakes, pies, ice cream and the likes. No cravings brings a level of eating freedom I never knew until I was 63. While some say Keto can not fix their health concerns and I am sure they are correct I know how Keto is helping me recover my health. My main long term focus is to eat in a way that gives me the potential to live to be 110 walking and talking the entire way. In fact I have invited a few to my 110th Birthday Bash.
Best to your health as well. MFP is an awesome site with something for everyone.
Guesstimating a few high days doesn't mean that was your actual calories. Last time we had the discussion, your estimate was 2000-3000 calories. So it's appears there has been inflation based on random low carb studies. I doubt, you would even be remotely near those actual levels of TDEE if you did metabolic chamber testing. Considering I am half your age and lift 5 days a week (with no cardio), and I meticulously track, I can say my TDEE is 2800-3000 calories.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions