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
-
Basically every diet that's based on mostly whole foods (which keto can be but is not necessarily, of course) claims to lower inflammation. I just listened to a podcast with Dean Ornish and he went on about how his WFPB/LF is great since it lowers inflammation (as a reason why his way of eating is best and keto is bad), and from what I've read elsewhere he's got a point about his own way of eating and some ways of doing keto, although he's wrong in some ways too:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fight-inflammation4 -
@johnslater461 I had no idea keto was part of Schrödinger equation. I will defer to you to provide the answer to your question that I am sure many MFP readers would love to learn more how keto is tied to quantum mechanics as you are suggesting. We know how powerful keto can be for reversing disease states and if you can show us how it is by quantum mechanics it could drive keto research at even a faster rate of progress than we see today.
While you are preparing your answer please also look at the article at the bottom of the link below about Dark Matter labelled, 'Researcher finds hint of dark energy discussion in letters between Einstein and Schrodinger'. Today I ran across the term "Dark Matter" used by Hilary L. Hunt M.D. in his book called 'Wilderness Cry' 2016 2nd edition. I would like your thoughts on Dark Energy itself and if it may relate to the human diet in any way.
Thanks.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-schrodinger-equation.html18 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »Keto. My personal opinion (not fact)? It's a stupid fad diet. How is staying so low on carbs that you end up skipping out on vegetables a good thing? If you want weight loss CICO is ultimately what can get you results.
I personally do a low carb diet. But you do not seem to know much about a diet you are bashing. On Keto there are quite a few Vegetables that you can eat on a regular basis. Really the ones that are off limits are starchy vegetables. And they are not on low carb diets either.
While you can have a limited variety, its low quantity. At least I thought so
I can agree with your statement. But as I fall in the Low carb end, opposed to those who do the Keto. I really can have a decent amount of almost any type of vegetable. Other than the starchy ones, which also do bad things for my blood sugars. So if I stay at 4 oz or less say roasted sweet potatoes here and there I am satisfied. With so many variations, everyone should be able to find one that works for them. But yes, there are some veges that I like that I really do not eat much of anymore, I just put some in to soups here and there. Matchstick carrots.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@johnslater461 I had no idea keto was part of Schrödinger equation. I will defer to you to provide the answer to your question that I am sure many MFP readers would love to learn more how keto is tied to quantum mechanics as you are suggesting. We know how powerful keto can be for reversing disease states and if you can show us how it is by quantum mechanics it could drive keto research at even a faster rate of progress than we see today.
While you are preparing your answer please also look at the article at the bottom of the link below about Dark Matter labelled, 'Researcher finds hint of dark energy discussion in letters between Einstein and Schrodinger'. Today I ran across the term "Dark Matter" used by Hilary L. Hunt M.D. in his book called 'Wilderness Cry' 2016 2nd edition. I would like your thoughts on Dark Energy itself and if it may relate to the human diet in any way.
Thanks.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-schrodinger-equation.html
Personally, my interest in quantum mechanics currently ranges as far as understanding this perplexing and very real mystery of life and physics:
12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.
While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.
https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/
If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?
Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?5 -
The ability to overcomplicate this stuff is stunning...10
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »@johnslater461 I had no idea keto was part of Schrödinger equation. I will defer to you to provide the answer to your question that I am sure many MFP readers would love to learn more how keto is tied to quantum mechanics as you are suggesting. We know how powerful keto can be for reversing disease states and if you can show us how it is by quantum mechanics it could drive keto research at even a faster rate of progress than we see today.
While you are preparing your answer please also look at the article at the bottom of the link below about Dark Matter labelled, 'Researcher finds hint of dark energy discussion in letters between Einstein and Schrodinger'. Today I ran across the term "Dark Matter" used by Hilary L. Hunt M.D. in his book called 'Wilderness Cry' 2016 2nd edition. I would like your thoughts on Dark Energy itself and if it may relate to the human diet in any way.
Thanks.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-schrodinger-equation.html
Wait, what? Even if dark energy was involved in every single interaction in the human body - and frankly, if it is just the minimum energy of space itself, it technically does - it would still have no appreciable effect on anything in the human body. The scales is so far off, no human could even come up with a good analogy because it would already involve things we have to analogize - like a grain of sand compared to the vastness of the solar system.
Plus, what would that even mean to be using dark energy? As the energy of space, to actually make it usable, presumably literal space - not matter in space but quantities of length itself - would have to disappear. What would that even conceivably mean?
And how would that even relate to ketosis? Do ketosis people shut off their chakra connection to dark energy and force their body to use the dark matter fat of their body to unleash Deepak Choprah's final form from the abyss of weight loss?
And then, why would all the ketoers who don't trust the actual physics modeling that over and over shows with proper metabolic wards that the body obeys CICO suddenly trust the these models that involve dark energy in calculating human weight loss?14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.
While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.
https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/
If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?
Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?
Who puts stock in any internet forum post?
As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.
I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.11 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »Keto. My personal opinion (not fact)? It's a stupid fad diet. How is staying so low on carbs that you end up skipping out on vegetables a good thing? If you want weight loss CICO is ultimately what can get you results.
I personally do a low carb diet. But you do not seem to know much about a diet you are bashing. On Keto there are quite a few Vegetables that you can eat on a regular basis. Really the ones that are off limits are starchy vegetables. And they are not on low carb diets either.
While you can have a limited variety, its low quantity. At least I thought so
I can agree with your statement. But as I fall in the Low carb end, opposed to those who do the Keto. I really can have a decent amount of almost any type of vegetable. Other than the starchy ones, which also do bad things for my blood sugars. So if I stay at 4 oz or less say roasted sweet potatoes here and there I am satisfied. With so many variations, everyone should be able to find one that works for them. But yes, there are some veges that I like that I really do not eat much of anymore, I just put some in to soups here and there. Matchstick carrots.
Yeah, low carb has plenty of veg as long as you use the carbs sensibly. I am low carb in some definitions (or was until I started my current diet experiment) and I could have as many veg as desired (usually 10+ servings), some fruit, and even starchy carbs with at least one meal, as long as the serving is moderate (or smaller servings at two meals). If someone considers low carb just less than 150 g (I think of that as more "moderate carb"), then it's even easier.
My personal experience with keto was that even on 60 g total, 35 g net, I was struggling to eat all the non starchy veg (plus avocado) I wanted and not go over even with limited full fat dairy and maybe a serving of nuts as my only other carbs (usually on alternate days).
That was without any fruit at all.
If someone is on under 20 net, I do think that for me that would be a huge decline in veg, and when they talk about eating other carb sources (including small amounts of fruit or keto treats that sometimes have some carbs), then I can't imagine how they are getting in what I'd consider a good number of veg. But I think people start with different ideas about what plenty of veg is.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.
While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.
https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/
If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?
Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?
Who puts stock in any internet forum post?
As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.
I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.
I'm not asking about a forum post. I'm asking about the study. The study that you cited in support of your claim that you were "sure" that you were burning additional calories due to your ketogenic diet. You are now saying that isn't true.
If what you're saying is that you don't bother to analyze claims when they mirror your personal experience . . . well, I appreciate your honesty but I think it makes you a terrible source of information. When a claim mirrors our personal experience or beliefs, that's actually a pretty good reason to question it. At the very least, consider not using information you haven't evaluated to try to support your claims. Just admit you believe it due to your personal experience. Saying you were "sure" due to the study was a lie.11 -
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
2 -
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
That was covered 3 posts up.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
That was covered 3 posts up.
I don't see it. Could you repost it for me? Thanks.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
That was covered 3 posts up.
4 posts up you said that you took no stock in calories, so it makes me wonder why you would care to track them.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.
While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.
https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/
If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?
Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?
Who puts stock in any internet forum post?
As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.
I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.
I'm not asking about a forum post. I'm asking about the study. The study that you cited in support of your claim that you were "sure" that you were burning additional calories due to your ketogenic diet. You are now saying that isn't true.
If what you're saying is that you don't bother to analyze claims when they mirror your personal experience . . . well, I appreciate your honesty but I think it makes you a terrible source of information. When a claim mirrors our personal experience or beliefs, that's actually a pretty good reason to question it. At the very least, consider not using information you haven't evaluated to try to support your claims. Just admit you believe it due to your personal experience. Saying you were "sure" due to the study was a lie.
I was sure about that I was burning additional calories due to my ketogenic diet before that study was reported but it is nice to know the report backs up my earlier personal experience.
Do you agree the ketogenic diet can be a lifesaver for some people?7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
That was covered 3 posts up.
I don't see it. Could you repost it for me? Thanks.
Sorry that was my bad it is 5 posts back. Now you see why I do not count and track calories any longer.
7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.
While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.
https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/
If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?
Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?
Who puts stock in any internet forum post?
As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.
I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.
I'm not asking about a forum post. I'm asking about the study. The study that you cited in support of your claim that you were "sure" that you were burning additional calories due to your ketogenic diet. You are now saying that isn't true.
If what you're saying is that you don't bother to analyze claims when they mirror your personal experience . . . well, I appreciate your honesty but I think it makes you a terrible source of information. When a claim mirrors our personal experience or beliefs, that's actually a pretty good reason to question it. At the very least, consider not using information you haven't evaluated to try to support your claims. Just admit you believe it due to your personal experience. Saying you were "sure" due to the study was a lie.
I was sure about that I was burning additional calories due to my ketogenic diet before that study was reported but it is nice to know the report backs up my earlier personal experience.
Do you agree the ketogenic diet can be a lifesaver for some people?
Either the report backs you up or you don't put any stock in it. It seems as if you're trying to have it both ways. You can't simultaneously use the report to vindicate your claims and also get away from discussing specifics by claiming that you didn't bother to read it and don't consider it to be reliable. (I mean, you *can* do that, but it isn't a credible position to hold).
Do I think the ketogenic diet can be a lifesaver for some people? Well, I've read that it has done wonders for the treatment of children with epilepsy and I generally accept that is true. As far as the other claims I've read, I am more skeptical but I do acknowledge we could have better evidence someday that those claims are accurate. I do believe that some people find the ketogenic diet to be a good choice for weight control due to the appetite suppression effect it has on them personally.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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?
As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.
While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.
https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/
If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?
Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?
Who puts stock in any internet forum post?
As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.
I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.
I'm not asking about a forum post. I'm asking about the study. The study that you cited in support of your claim that you were "sure" that you were burning additional calories due to your ketogenic diet. You are now saying that isn't true.
If what you're saying is that you don't bother to analyze claims when they mirror your personal experience . . . well, I appreciate your honesty but I think it makes you a terrible source of information. When a claim mirrors our personal experience or beliefs, that's actually a pretty good reason to question it. At the very least, consider not using information you haven't evaluated to try to support your claims. Just admit you believe it due to your personal experience. Saying you were "sure" due to the study was a lie.
I was sure about that I was burning additional calories due to my ketogenic diet before that study was reported but it is nice to know the report backs up my earlier personal experience.
Do you agree the ketogenic diet can be a lifesaver for some people?
Odd because even the study doesn't have the methodology to support a strong conclusion that a ketogenic dieter is burning more calories.
Frankly, when dealing with your self as on subject, you have as exactly as much evidence that your McDonald's coffee was causing the change in calories - even assuming there was a change for arguendo - because you have no way to separate two causes when working with one body.
I'm sure ketogenic can be rather helpful for people that have epilepsy with no other manageable treatment options - something that seems to be diminishing with advances in pharmacology. I'm currently unaware of any study that strongly shows any other health benefit of keto that there isn't also evidence for being simple the result of weight loss.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
That was covered 3 posts up.
I don't see it. Could you repost it for me? Thanks.
Sorry that was my bad it is 5 posts back. Now you see why I do not count and track calories any longer.
Sorry, can you repost. I can not find...
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Out of curiosity, how did you track that?GaleHawkins wrote: »Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.
That was covered 3 posts up.
I don't see it. Could you repost it for me? Thanks.
It states he didn't track calories except maybe a day or two and magically made up these values. And since my last discussion that number has grown by 1000 calories.
So no tracking, methods or actual basis for information except winging it.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions