Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Debating going Keto

13

Replies

  • Scotty2HotPieScotty2HotPie Posts: 83Member Member Posts: 83Member Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    @CJDaniel7

    Remember "Dr" Berg is a Chiropractor not a Dietician. Personally I wouldn't go to a Dietician to have my spine cracked.

    A leopard may change his spots but Berg resorted to very shady practices in the past - see link regarding the disciplinary action against him by his own Board. Make up your own mind if he is a reliable source or not.....
    https://www.casewatch.net/board/chiro/berg.shtml

    I always get such a sketchy feeling about non-medical doctors using their titles in a seeming attempt to boost their weight loss/nutritional credibility.

    Even "Real" doctors, like GP Family doctors.

    Most doctors get very limited education on Nutrition and are often instructed to follow USDA guidelines. They can get into serious trouble when they don't toe the guidelines.

    Which is unfortunate, since nutrition probably has biggest single impact on our health that we have control over. And there isn't a perfect diet that fits every person. We're all too different.
    edited January 11
  • LynnJ9LynnJ9 Posts: 255Member, Premium Member Posts: 255Member, Premium Member
    hclay25 wrote: »
    I’ve just read lots of people having success over it. That’s the only reason I would consider it. I don’t have any medical issues or reasons to try it really.

    Just to start off, I am not dieting KETO, though I do think it is great for people who really find protein very filling.

    But, I often wonder if there is more to KETO than just the calorie deficit. A while ago (it may have been 9 months ago or so) someone posted a scientific medical journal article (not a woo article) which discussed the way in which the body digested food. I wish I could remember all the details, but the big take away was that people digest different macros to a different degree.

    People digest a higher percentage of carbohydrates, I don't remember the number, but just for discussion, let's say 80% of carbohydrates are digested, the rest passes through a person's system and is evacuated undigested. The article stated fat is digested at the next highest rate, let's say 70%. So 70% of fat is digested and 30% is evacuated without being digested. Protein is the hardest to digest, let's say 60% is digested, and 40% is evacuated without being digested.

    Does anyone have that article? And if that is the case, could we not say you could eat more protein calories than you can carbohydrates calories and get the same deficit?

    Thoughts?
  • jjpptt2jjpptt2 Posts: 4,261Member Member Posts: 4,261Member Member
    LynnJ9 wrote: »
    hclay25 wrote: »
    I’ve just read lots of people having success over it. That’s the only reason I would consider it. I don’t have any medical issues or reasons to try it really.

    Just to start off, I am not dieting KETO, though I do think it is great for people who really find protein very filling.

    But, I often wonder if there is more to KETO than just the calorie deficit. A while ago (it may have been 9 months ago or so) someone posted a scientific medical journal article (not a woo article) which discussed the way in which the body digested food. I wish I could remember all the details, but the big take away was that people digest different macros to a different degree.

    People digest a higher percentage of carbohydrates, I don't remember the number, but just for discussion, let's say 80% of carbohydrates are digested, the rest passes through a person's system and is evacuated undigested. The article stated fat is digested at the next highest rate, let's say 70%. So 70% of fat is digested and 30% is evacuated without being digested. Protein is the hardest to digest, let's say 60% is digested, and 40% is evacuated without being digested.

    Does anyone have that article? And if that is the case, could we not say you could eat more protein calories than you can carbohydrates calories and get the same deficit?

    Thoughts?

    To my understanding, what our bodies don't digest is already taken into account when determining the calorie value of a food.

    The handful of nutrition labels I've looked at in this context support your statement - calories do not reflect undigestible content. FWIW, I'm in the USA looking at US food labels.

    It's often the reason why people complain that when they enter food into their diary, the macros don't correctly add up to the calories... i.e. 9*fats + 4*carbs + 4*protein does not = total cals
  • kenyonhaffkenyonhaff Posts: 1,068Member Member Posts: 1,068Member Member
    Remember: This is MFP...you don't HAVE to follow keto or any other "additional" plan to play here.

    Saying that...if you're considering a certain kind, why not just give it a try for a given period of time, such as a month? You don't have to commit your entire life. See if it works for you. In the end, the only way you can find out is by giving a try.
  • jjpptt2jjpptt2 Posts: 4,261Member Member Posts: 4,261Member Member
    I think it's important when discussing these hot button topics that we be overly clear about what we are talking about.

    Does keto work? Depends on a lot of things, one of those things is what exactly you mean by "work".

    Most of us default to the context of weight loss... so we say things like "keto works if it helps you maintain a calorie deficit." That's true.

    Others come at it from the angle of overall health or how they feel while on keto or any of a number of things. Those aren't wrong... but can be a bit more subjective/individual, so it's important to make that clear. But those things are no more or less valid than is the weight loss context.

    Far too often, all these different contexts gets mashed into 1 conversation because someone makes an assumption, assuming that others are making the same assumption. So... let this be a reminder to all to be clear about what you are claiming/supporting/arguing.
  • arialb122arialb122 Posts: 26Member Member Posts: 26Member Member
    arialb122 wrote: »
    I've been keto for a year. I've lost 129 lbs so far. It's not just about losing weight on keto. You lose the inflammation due to the processed foods. You gain a clear cognitive mind, more energy, overall improvement in the way you feel. I'm strict keto meaning ingredients are the most important thing. I have not missed out or felt deprived of any food.

    Also the way of eating is not hard or complicated. I thought that at first too, but quickly learned it's is pretty simple. Bottom line for me I will never go back to a western diet. I will stay keto going forward.

    for you it may have done that, for me it caused me inflammation(I have RA), I was lethargic and my mind was awful .my short term memory went to hell and I never had an issue before and dont now. I was on it 2 months and it wasnt keto flu because I did research and made sure to prevent the keto flu before I started. my health was literally going down the drain and I was very close to having hubby take me to the ER because I felt like my body was shutting down. he told me I needed to stop keto and see what happens, I did and things improved again and went back to normal(well what is normal for me) I lost no more weight on keto than any other way of eating.

    weight loss in and of itself can cause an improvement in health issues as well. I also eat processed foods and they do not cause me any inflammation at all ,not even my RA

    That's so interesting! I have RA and have had significant improvement with my RA. It's amazing how different bodies are.

    yep mine is at a minimum right now and I dont need meds yet(its been more than 10 years since diagnosed). but when I was doing keto I was in a LOT of pain. not so now as I no longer do keto

    Sorry, I wrote that poorly! I am doing keto and have been miraculously pain free since the second week I began. I am, however, on two different RA meds (plaquenil and sulfasalazine). I'm glad you're doing well without the keto diet!
  • kshama2001kshama2001 Posts: 16,786Member Member Posts: 16,786Member Member
    LynnJ9 wrote: »
    hclay25 wrote: »
    I’ve just read lots of people having success over it. That’s the only reason I would consider it. I don’t have any medical issues or reasons to try it really.

    Just to start off, I am not dieting KETO, though I do think it is great for people who really find protein very filling.

    But, I often wonder if there is more to KETO than just the calorie deficit. A while ago (it may have been 9 months ago or so) someone posted a scientific medical journal article (not a woo article) which discussed the way in which the body digested food. I wish I could remember all the details, but the big take away was that people digest different macros to a different degree.

    People digest a higher percentage of carbohydrates, I don't remember the number, but just for discussion, let's say 80% of carbohydrates are digested, the rest passes through a person's system and is evacuated undigested. The article stated fat is digested at the next highest rate, let's say 70%. So 70% of fat is digested and 30% is evacuated without being digested. Protein is the hardest to digest, let's say 60% is digested, and 40% is evacuated without being digested.

    Does anyone have that article? And if that is the case, could we not say you could eat more protein calories than you can carbohydrates calories and get the same deficit?

    Thoughts?

    Once a link is posted to the article I will share my thoughts :)
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 8,862Member Member Posts: 8,862Member Member
    kenyonhaff wrote: »
    Remember: This is MFP...you don't HAVE to follow keto or any other "additional" plan to play here.

    Saying that...if you're considering a certain kind, why not just give it a try for a given period of time, such as a month? You don't have to commit your entire life. See if it works for you. In the end, the only way you can find out is by giving a try.

    In general, I think that's pretty sensible and moderate advice. The one thing I'd say is that keto seems to be one of the more "technical" (for lack of a better term) ways of managing one's eating, with things that need to be done to actually get into a keto state, to avoid "keto flu", and that sort of thing.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't do it, and I believe that it works super well for some people (not just those with medical need, but some others). I have nothing against it (except for me, personally; low carb isn't my jam).

    I'm saying that it's easier to "test drive" eating modes that have simpler rules, in order to achieve/sustain that way of eating for a fair trial, and figure out whether they have the advertised benefits or are compatible with a particular person's enjoyment and nutrition. Even something like "whole foods plant based/no animal product consumption" are easier in that sense. There are things (in WFPB) that need to be understood in order to maintaing good nutrition (like B12 intake), but those are not things that will cause major problems during a month's trial, for most people.

    Again, I'm not saying that the relative complexity is a reason not to try keto, and I suspect most people will achieve low-carb (if not an actual keto state), but I think it is something people should think about, and be sure they understand that eating mode, as prep for a trial.

    I also suspect that the technical-ish aspect is something some people will enjoy. (That's not a criticism: I like the science-fair aspect of calorie counting, and that's part of what makes counting a good solution for me. Some other people hate counting, so it might not be the best choice for them.)
Sign In or Register to comment.