Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Keto diet = good or bad

18910111214»

Replies

  • jbauer0010jbauer0010 Posts: 12Member Member Posts: 12Member Member
    My doctor and my dietician advised me against keto BUT I also have had some health issues. I was given a lower carb plan to follow but not keto. I think anyone/everyone should consult with a doctor/dietician before doing ANY diet. I have friends doing keto tho and they are very happy and healthy but they fit the target, type 2 diabetics or suffer from PCOS.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 4,605Member Member Posts: 4,605Member Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    alc649 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    alc649 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.

    It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.

    This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!

    It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.

    Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.

    Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.

    Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.

    I think everyone's trigger foods can be different :)

    I don't disagree. However her point was that many times people identify high carb items like the ones listed as trigger foods. These foods are most often both high carb and high fat. This creates a hyper palatability that can be a struggle for many people. Yet the food is identified and "high carb". Not completely accurate.

    Exactly. You could just as easily describe them as high fat foods but that would be the same misguided notion...
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 11,401Member Member Posts: 11,401Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 33,794Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 33,794Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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
  • L1zardQueenL1zardQueen Posts: 6,447Member Member Posts: 6,447Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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

    The link is broken.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 11,401Member Member Posts: 11,401Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 33,794Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 33,794Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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

    The link is broken.

    Copy and paste the whole thing into a web browser.
  • L1zardQueenL1zardQueen Posts: 6,447Member Member Posts: 6,447Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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

    The link is broken.

    Copy and paste the whole thing into a web browser.

    Thank you, I will try again. It was probably me.
18910111214»
Sign In or Register to comment.