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
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm
"The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."5 -
Basic concepts I think about regarding Keto:
What do humans store extra energy as?
If you are used to using that form wouldn’t those stores be easier to tap?
What is the big difference between modern man’s diet (surviving-minus heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.- for hundreds of years) and our ancestral diet (with man surviving and thriving for thousands of years)?
After research what makes the most sense?
Does it do good things for me personally?
2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm
"The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."
I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.
I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.
They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.
1 -
For those who are looking at the possible benefits of a ketogenic diet, this video is not too bad.
Definitely on the pro side so those uninterested will probably want to skip it.
https://youtu.be/CdoSSaKjv7A 5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm
"The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."
I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.
I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.
They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.
Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.2 -
SunnyYakimaniac wrote: »Is there a Keto support group on MFP anywhere? I need ideas for snacks that won't undo my efforts.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm
"The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."
I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.
I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.
They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.
Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.
First Na·tionDictionary result for First Nation
noun
plural noun: First Nations
any of the groups of indigenous peoples of Canada officially recognized as an administrative unit by the federal government or functioning as such without official status. The term is generally understood to exclude the Inuit and Metis.
"the Siksika First Nation in Alberta"
Im part mohawk which is considered first nation, Im also algonquin and Iroquois(among other things lol) and the fat storing gene Im assuming its meaning they dont store a lot of fat? if so it missed me lol
also this https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm
"The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."
I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.
I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.
They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.
Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.
First Na·tionDictionary result for First Nation
noun
plural noun: First Nations
any of the groups of indigenous peoples of Canada officially recognized as an administrative unit by the federal government or functioning as such without official status. The term is generally understood to exclude the Inuit and Metis.
"the Siksika First Nation in Alberta"
Im part mohawk which is considered first nation, Im also algonquin and Iroquois(among other things lol) and the fat storing gene Im assuming its meaning they dont store a lot of fat? if so it missed me lol
also this https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal
Yeah, I get that now. For some reason I'd always just assumed that "first nations" was the Canadian way of referring politely to all Native American populations. I didn't know it was supposed to be Canada-specific, etc.
Re: fat storing gene, you mean the thrifty gene concept? It is supposed to mean that in certain more recently hunter-gatherer populations there's an adaptation to help put on fat more easily for times of famine, and it could be why many of those populations seem especially susceptible to T2D.
It seems to be pretty criticized/subject to correction, and the hypothesis has been modified some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrifty_gene_hypothesis1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???
Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?
This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.
Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.
Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.
I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/
It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).
It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm
"The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."
I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.
I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.
They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.
Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.
First Na·tionDictionary result for First Nation
noun
plural noun: First Nations
any of the groups of indigenous peoples of Canada officially recognized as an administrative unit by the federal government or functioning as such without official status. The term is generally understood to exclude the Inuit and Metis.
"the Siksika First Nation in Alberta"
Im part mohawk which is considered first nation, Im also algonquin and Iroquois(among other things lol) and the fat storing gene Im assuming its meaning they dont store a lot of fat? if so it missed me lol
also this https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal
Yeah, I get that now. For some reason I'd always just assumed that "first nations" was the Canadian way of referring politely to all Native American populations. I didn't know it was supposed to be Canada-specific, etc.
Re: fat storing gene, you mean the thrifty gene concept? It is supposed to mean that in certain more recently hunter-gatherer populations there's an adaptation to help put on fat more easily for times of famine, and it could be why many of those populations seem especially susceptible to T2D.
It seems to be pretty criticized/subject to correction, and the hypothesis has been modified some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrifty_gene_hypothesis
I found this because I dont trust wikipedia as a valid source(as it can be edited) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723682/1 -
I read many but not all of the comments. Many mention Ketoas being no carbs. That is not correct. Keto is 35 total carbs /20 net carbs. Whether it is good or bad depends on what research you read.1
-
-
Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!
My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.
In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.
So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.
Before you knock it, you should do some research.40 -
homeschooljunglemom wrote: »Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!
My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.
In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.
I'm very happy that you have found a method of reducing caloric intake that works for you and your family. Congratulations on your success!
But here's where you've gone off the rails:So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.
ALL weight loss - yes, even keto - is governed by reducing the amount of calories consumed every day to where it's below the amount your body actually uses. Calories in/calories (CICO) out isn't a diet plan. CICO isn't about counting calories. It's the scientific thermodynamic principle that governs ALL weight management programs regardless of the diet used to achieve your goals. CICO doesn't slow down your metabolism, either, because, in and of itself, it's simply a measurement of energy balance. Just like a mile is always a mile to measure distance, or a degree is always a degree to measure temperature.Before you knock it, you should do some research.
Couldn't agree more! Here's a chart that might help:
27 -
homeschooljunglemom wrote: »Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!
My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.
In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.
So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.
Before you knock it, you should do some research.
All weight loss comes down to burning more calories than you take in.
All weight loss results in a slower metabolism. Why? Because smaller people have lower caloric requirements, so (all other things being equal) a 250lb person will burn more calories than a 150lb person, just by existing.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/metabolic-damage/16 -
homeschooljunglemom wrote: »Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!
My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.
In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.
So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.
Before you knock it, you should do some research.
You've only been maintaining since October, so a few months. Most people regain their losses within two years, so get back with us in a few years and then we'll talk.
I'm coming up on 6 years of maintenance (being mindful of calories in/calories out), and I know the odds are still stacked against me, since I have 40+ years of maintenance ahead of me.
You're still in the honeymoon phase of weight loss. Maintenance is for 20, 30, 40+ years and most people fail at it, regardless of what plan they're following/what plan they used to lose weight.22 -
homeschooljunglemom wrote: »Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!
My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.
In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.
So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.
Before you knock it, you should do some research.
Do you have some proprietary definition of research? Because you seem to be using that word to either mean "I did something personally" or "something the means people agree with me".
I'm aware of no to little actual research - by which I would mean scientific study as these all seem empirical claims to me - that supports these reported effects as based on ketosis. There are some that I could see as attributed to weight loss simpliciter.
I also don't see what is meant by people can't maintain calories in and calories out - that's exactly what you are doing if you are maintaining your weight.21 -
Fat loss = CI<CO. How one get there is up to the user. Period, end of story...15
-
homeschooljunglemom wrote: »Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!
My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.
In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.
So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.
Before you knock it, you should do some research.
I've been eating moderate to high carb my whole life. I never got to the point where I needed to lose a ton of weight, never struggled with an "addiction" to any kind of food. Just got a little too lazy and ate a little too much. I lost 20 lbs eating @ 200g of carbs a day, and I have been effortlessly maintaining that loss for 2 years eating the same way, and I feel like I eat just what I want. And I'm eating more calories than I was before I started because I've become more active.
I was a 41 year old who most people thought was much younger when I started, and that's still the case now that I'm 46. I never get sick, no stomach troubles. My allergies also went away, but that's because my cat died and it turns out I was a bit allergic to him, because that's kind of how allergies work.
I also go by what my body (and my soul) need. Whole grains make me feel full and happy. Fatty foods I find easy to overeat and they make me feel heavy and don't sit well. Keto WOULD be a diet of deprivation for me, because the foods I enjoy and thrive on are different than the foods you seem to enjoy and thrive on.
Very few people here "knock" keto, we knock the idea that it is the best diet for everyone and a magical elixir of health. For some people it is a godsend, and that's awesome. But the vast majority of health improvements that people wax poetic about keto for, are actually seen by most people who lose weight and start prioritizing their diet, regardless of which diet they choose. I learned that through years of research.22 -
And typically, health improvements come from the act of losing fat in and of itself, not all but most IMO. Too much credit is typically given to the diet, any diet...
11
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