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 -pros and cons
Replies
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »There are both pro-Keto and anti-Keto people on this site. Sadly the anti-keto folks are really misinformed. If you have to lose a few vanity pounds and are in good health it may not be for you. If you are obese with other medical conditions such as gastro problems, high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes it's perfect for you. If you lost weight countless times with restricted calories and more exercise only to gain it back each time, it's perfect. If you are killing CICO and the scale is not moving, try it. Most people who say they tried, and didn't like it, were probably never completely adapted. It takes time. If you were pounding 300 carbs a day you can't just drop to 20 overnight. Proper keto requires work. You have to test with strips, or a breath or blood meter to make sure you are in ketosis. You tend to get constipated. The transition period to fix digestive issues can take over 3 months. If you make it, you will be so grateful. High fiber makes many people much worse inspite of what guidlines and most doctors say. Your blood pressure and A1C will drop like mad. Once you are in the groove you'll start dropping your blood pressure and diabetes medicine. Long before you've lost significant weight. You will have a huge jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity. You will feel great. You will fix your body. The pounds will come off at a rate you've never experienced before. You will learn how to make Hollandaise sauce if you don't know how to. A perfect keto breakfast is 2 eggs and hollandaise sauce (2 eggs and half a stick of real butter) and bacon or meat of your choice over 2 cups of steamed spinach. Many days one can eat this and not eat until the next day without any hunger. It's not just a fad as many still believe. It's a way of life. Very sustainable. And a much better one. The food is really insignificant when you look at the true health benefits though. The site below has over 500 thousand members. You don't have to join to use it. Look at the health benefits, the challenges, and the food you eat. Watch some of the many doctor videos. Check it out for yourself: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb#oopsie
Good Luck to all, even the the devil Jillian Michaels (That's a joke)
well I can say I have gastro problems and keto didnt do a dang thing for them. it made them worse and it gave me diarrhea I was not constipated. my gallbladder works fine so its not that. I was keto adapted as I did it for 2 months. my gastroenterologist also said that keto isnt going to "cure" gastro/digestive problems as many of those things are caused by other issues which change in diet rarely makes a big difference. I know for me my self it hasnt. ad for the the jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity I had a HUGE decline in mine. I didnt feel great, it didnt fix my body it made my health issues worse and those with type 2 and high blood pressure weight loss alone can improve those things keto or not. I lost 45 lbs eating more that 200g of carbs per day because I was in a deficit still. as for the hunger it made no difference I did not lose a lot of weight in the beginning either 5 lbs was the most I lost on keto and then it slowed down.
I was obese too all my health issues started when I was thin and at a healthy weight and some of them are genetic. keto is NOT going to fix those things. maybe for some that do keto will see some improvement in health issues(you still have to watch calories as you can gain weight doing keto). but for me it made my health decline at a rapid pace and I will say I will NEVER do it again. if someone else wants to do it or try it thhats their choice but people also need to be aware of the issues it can also cause on ones health. oh and keto is 50g net of carbs not 20. some athletes can be in ketosis eating more than 100g of carbs a day. it definitely was NOT sustainable for me at all. If I had kept going I probably would not be here now and thats not a joke or a jab at keto its what I experienced.
Those with familial hypercholesterolemia would be outliers though and may not have an average or typical response to lchf . Please excuse me if I have misremembered your situation.
My wife's GI got worse with low carb. She does not do well with high fat, especially with not having a gallbladder. And it got even worse after having a colon resecetion.
And keto just made me feel like crap. I suspect based on the low compliance rate, that all those benefits you feel apply to a smaller range of people than you suspect.
Your wife is probably not typical of those who benefit from keto the most either - typically those with metabolic syndrome, usually with a gallbladder, although there are a number doing lchf and keto successfully in the sub forums without one.
The only long term success rates I have seen with keto that go above and beyond plain old calorie moderation are in virta, and that was people reversing t2d. As I have said before, compliance seems to be higher when one is getting some great health benefits from the diet.
If one is not getting any benefits, or one is having added problems, it would be foolish to continue.
I've heard of reversing diabetes on calorie restrictions, so long as 10% or greater weight loss is maintained.
That is correct, and often without lchf. Lchf tends to be more effective for those diabetics who stick with it, but it isn't needed for all. Helpful, but not always required.
Not sure what the comparison is to. Is the claim that LCHF is more effective when stuck with no other considerations versus people who have lost 10% of body weight and "stick with [maintaining a 10% body weight loss]"? I assume effective means, having less markers for diabetes? Actually, I'd be interested in knowing what even are the markers being considered, as resting glucose seems like it really isn't going to be a relevant analysis, and an actual glucose challenge is usually going to go rather poorly for someone that is actually long term ketosis.
I'm not sure that it is ever required is the point of my 10% weight loss.
If someone loses 10% of their body weight and eats a bag of candy that is within their calorie budget, they will have poorer blood glucose control than someone who eats the same amount of calories in more typical low carb junk foods like pork rinds.
This also would be true for healthier meals: pasta marinara vs steak and a side salad, or bacon and eggs vs a muffin and orange juice.
Blood glucose is best controlled by what you eat. Insulin levels depend on that too. This my point. I agree that people will often have better BG if they lose weight, but BG will be steadiest and lowest in one who eats fewer carbs.
What is blood glucose control? I know what blood glucose level is. I know what a fasting glucose challenge is. I don't know what blood glucose control is.
If you just mean one not eating carbohydrates will have lower glucose than not eating carbohydrate, I fail to see the relevance or revelation. Simply having glucose in one's blood is not bad - having zero is actually the unhealthiest number.
Put simply, those with hyperinsulinemia tend to have higher BG numbers than is health or optimal. Spiking BG, even in non diabetics, is thought to contribute to health and circulatory problems in the long term. Good BG control is avoiding those spikes and keeping BG below prediabetic or diabetic ranges. The upper limit of healthy after a meal is 140 or 7.8; lower is healthier and easier to achieve with low carb. Zero is, of course, ridiculous to consider. A healthy lower limit is closer to 70 or 4.
Good blood glucose control is staying between the upper and lower limits. How you get there partially indicates your health. If you get there by injecting insulin, chances are your health is not great. If you manage it with diet, sleep and exercise, that would indicate better health.
I would think that good insulin control is actually the spikiest outcome. We say that someone's insulin sensitivity is a measure of how quickly their glucose returns to a near fasting level after a glucose containing meal enters the blood stream, yes? Well the fastest level in such an incident would be a very rapid spike down, would it not?
Rather, I think instead of spiky, we would want to talk about the maximum of the curve, or the time area under the curve above fasting.
Also, when you say thought to contribute, do you think it is actually causative, rather than a marker associated with a deeper pathology? It would seem at odds with what seems to be your interpretation of lipid profiles, but it could be understandable with the right empirical evidence.
It seems to me in studies I've seen, a low carbohydrate dieter (as in eater, not as in losing weight) is going to have low glucose, but my impression was their time area curves for insulin response is actually kind of poor as well as the peak, presumably because of the adaptions for a LC diet - even the pancreas and insulin are against speculative production for that glucose raining day. I definitely wouldn't describe that as spiky, nor good if the free floating glucose itself is problematic.
I disagree. It is thought that the BG and insulin spikes will lead to damage over time.
Plus if just looking at BG spikes, you miss what insulin us doing. Joseph Kraft collected a lot of data on insulin curves and diabetics, and I think his approach makes sense: abnormal insulin proceeds abnormal BG.
My ogtt showed slightly high BG response at 30 minutes (clise to 9) but then by 2hrs my bg was well below where I started (5.6 i thknk) showing an abnormal insulin response. At 2 hrs, my bg was at a healthy fasting level... I think it was a low 4.
Some with more advanced hyperinsulinemia will have a delayed lowering after a higher carb meal. True. Some low carbers will have a delayed response after becoming fat adapted because they are no longer primarily glucose burners, just like glucose burners can't adapt to high fat immediately. Its transient. For low carb meals there is no real time difference.
Spiking high BG and chronically elevated insulin are thought to be causative, but I tend to view the factors that cause those situations as the actual root cause, mainly lifestyle and food choices.
From what i have seen, obesity has the greatest impact, not necessarily having spikes in BG or glucose. Obesity drives insulin resistance which makes it more difficult for the body to address high glucose consumption. Usually when consumed with high fat and low fiber diet, you create a poor situation for your body to cope. Obesity is also the biggest cause for inflammation and other disease. So solve those and you shall be better off.8 -
Also, just because I am pedantic, and the point doesn't seem to have gotten across, there are no "CICO diets." CICO refers to the truth that calorie balance determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. All diets, including keto (whatever your goals are, could be to maintain or gain), work by CICO principles, even when people don't count.
No it has. I was just stating what I was doing at the time and what I originally thought what CICO was.
3 -
One keto pro in my case is knowing I am reducing my odds of having to ever start kidney dialysis in trying to prevent my premature death.7
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »One keto pro in my case is knowing I am reducing my odds of having to ever start kidney dialysis in trying to prevent my premature death.
Odd statement given low carbohydrate diets are usually cautioned against for anyone with kidney damage, though they are said to be fine for people with properly functioning kidneys.
It seems like you are claiming there is benefit of keto towards kidney health that is actually above standard weight loss.11 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »There are both pro-Keto and anti-Keto people on this site. Sadly the anti-keto folks are really misinformed. If you have to lose a few vanity pounds and are in good health it may not be for you. If you are obese with other medical conditions such as gastro problems, high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes it's perfect for you. If you lost weight countless times with restricted calories and more exercise only to gain it back each time, it's perfect. If you are killing CICO and the scale is not moving, try it. Most people who say they tried, and didn't like it, were probably never completely adapted. It takes time. If you were pounding 300 carbs a day you can't just drop to 20 overnight. Proper keto requires work. You have to test with strips, or a breath or blood meter to make sure you are in ketosis. You tend to get constipated. The transition period to fix digestive issues can take over 3 months. If you make it, you will be so grateful. High fiber makes many people much worse inspite of what guidlines and most doctors say. Your blood pressure and A1C will drop like mad. Once you are in the groove you'll start dropping your blood pressure and diabetes medicine. Long before you've lost significant weight. You will have a huge jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity. You will feel great. You will fix your body. The pounds will come off at a rate you've never experienced before. You will learn how to make Hollandaise sauce if you don't know how to. A perfect keto breakfast is 2 eggs and hollandaise sauce (2 eggs and half a stick of real butter) and bacon or meat of your choice over 2 cups of steamed spinach. Many days one can eat this and not eat until the next day without any hunger. It's not just a fad as many still believe. It's a way of life. Very sustainable. And a much better one. The food is really insignificant when you look at the true health benefits though. The site below has over 500 thousand members. You don't have to join to use it. Look at the health benefits, the challenges, and the food you eat. Watch some of the many doctor videos. Check it out for yourself: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb#oopsie
Good Luck to all, even the the devil Jillian Michaels (That's a joke)
well I can say I have gastro problems and keto didnt do a dang thing for them. it made them worse and it gave me diarrhea I was not constipated. my gallbladder works fine so its not that. I was keto adapted as I did it for 2 months. my gastroenterologist also said that keto isnt going to "cure" gastro/digestive problems as many of those things are caused by other issues which change in diet rarely makes a big difference. I know for me my self it hasnt. ad for the the jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity I had a HUGE decline in mine. I didnt feel great, it didnt fix my body it made my health issues worse and those with type 2 and high blood pressure weight loss alone can improve those things keto or not. I lost 45 lbs eating more that 200g of carbs per day because I was in a deficit still. as for the hunger it made no difference I did not lose a lot of weight in the beginning either 5 lbs was the most I lost on keto and then it slowed down.
I was obese too all my health issues started when I was thin and at a healthy weight and some of them are genetic. keto is NOT going to fix those things. maybe for some that do keto will see some improvement in health issues(you still have to watch calories as you can gain weight doing keto). but for me it made my health decline at a rapid pace and I will say I will NEVER do it again. if someone else wants to do it or try it thhats their choice but people also need to be aware of the issues it can also cause on ones health. oh and keto is 50g net of carbs not 20. some athletes can be in ketosis eating more than 100g of carbs a day. it definitely was NOT sustainable for me at all. If I had kept going I probably would not be here now and thats not a joke or a jab at keto its what I experienced.
Those with familial hypercholesterolemia would be outliers though and may not have an average or typical response to lchf . Please excuse me if I have misremembered your situation.
My wife's GI got worse with low carb. She does not do well with high fat, especially with not having a gallbladder. And it got even worse after having a colon resecetion.
And keto just made me feel like crap. I suspect based on the low compliance rate, that all those benefits you feel apply to a smaller range of people than you suspect.
Your wife is probably not typical of those who benefit from keto the most either - typically those with metabolic syndrome, usually with a gallbladder, although there are a number doing lchf and keto successfully in the sub forums without one.
The only long term success rates I have seen with keto that go above and beyond plain old calorie moderation are in virta, and that was people reversing t2d. As I have said before, compliance seems to be higher when one is getting some great health benefits from the diet.
If one is not getting any benefits, or one is having added problems, it would be foolish to continue.
I've heard of reversing diabetes on calorie restrictions, so long as 10% or greater weight loss is maintained.
That is correct, and often without lchf. Lchf tends to be more effective for those diabetics who stick with it, but it isn't needed for all. Helpful, but not always required.
Not sure what the comparison is to. Is the claim that LCHF is more effective when stuck with no other considerations versus people who have lost 10% of body weight and "stick with [maintaining a 10% body weight loss]"? I assume effective means, having less markers for diabetes? Actually, I'd be interested in knowing what even are the markers being considered, as resting glucose seems like it really isn't going to be a relevant analysis, and an actual glucose challenge is usually going to go rather poorly for someone that is actually long term ketosis.
I'm not sure that it is ever required is the point of my 10% weight loss.
If someone loses 10% of their body weight and eats a bag of candy that is within their calorie budget, they will have poorer blood glucose control than someone who eats the same amount of calories in more typical low carb junk foods like pork rinds.
This also would be true for healthier meals: pasta marinara vs steak and a side salad, or bacon and eggs vs a muffin and orange juice.
Blood glucose is best controlled by what you eat. Insulin levels depend on that too. This my point. I agree that people will often have better BG if they lose weight, but BG will be steadiest and lowest in one who eats fewer carbs.
What is blood glucose control? I know what blood glucose level is. I know what a fasting glucose challenge is. I don't know what blood glucose control is.
If you just mean one not eating carbohydrates will have lower glucose than not eating carbohydrate, I fail to see the relevance or revelation. Simply having glucose in one's blood is not bad - having zero is actually the unhealthiest number.
Put simply, those with hyperinsulinemia tend to have higher BG numbers than is health or optimal. Spiking BG, even in non diabetics, is thought to contribute to health and circulatory problems in the long term. Good BG control is avoiding those spikes and keeping BG below prediabetic or diabetic ranges. The upper limit of healthy after a meal is 140 or 7.8; lower is healthier and easier to achieve with low carb. Zero is, of course, ridiculous to consider. A healthy lower limit is closer to 70 or 4.
Good blood glucose control is staying between the upper and lower limits. How you get there partially indicates your health. If you get there by injecting insulin, chances are your health is not great. If you manage it with diet, sleep and exercise, that would indicate better health.
I would think that good insulin control is actually the spikiest outcome. We say that someone's insulin sensitivity is a measure of how quickly their glucose returns to a near fasting level after a glucose containing meal enters the blood stream, yes? Well the fastest level in such an incident would be a very rapid spike down, would it not?
Rather, I think instead of spiky, we would want to talk about the maximum of the curve, or the time area under the curve above fasting.
Also, when you say thought to contribute, do you think it is actually causative, rather than a marker associated with a deeper pathology? It would seem at odds with what seems to be your interpretation of lipid profiles, but it could be understandable with the right empirical evidence.
It seems to me in studies I've seen, a low carbohydrate dieter (as in eater, not as in losing weight) is going to have low glucose, but my impression was their time area curves for insulin response is actually kind of poor as well as the peak, presumably because of the adaptions for a LC diet - even the pancreas and insulin are against speculative production for that glucose raining day. I definitely wouldn't describe that as spiky, nor good if the free floating glucose itself is problematic.
I disagree. It is thought that the BG and insulin spikes will lead to damage over time.
Plus if just looking at BG spikes, you miss what insulin us doing. Joseph Kraft collected a lot of data on insulin curves and diabetics, and I think his approach makes sense: abnormal insulin proceeds abnormal BG.
My ogtt showed slightly high BG response at 30 minutes (clise to 9) but then by 2hrs my bg was well below where I started (5.6 i thknk) showing an abnormal insulin response. At 2 hrs, my bg was at a healthy fasting level... I think it was a low 4.
Some with more advanced hyperinsulinemia will have a delayed lowering after a higher carb meal. True. Some low carbers will have a delayed response after becoming fat adapted because they are no longer primarily glucose burners, just like glucose burners can't adapt to high fat immediately. Its transient. For low carb meals there is no real time difference.
Spiking high BG and chronically elevated insulin are thought to be causative, but I tend to view the factors that cause those situations as the actual root cause, mainly lifestyle and food choices.
From what i have seen, obesity has the greatest impact, not necessarily having spikes in BG or glucose. Obesity drives insulin resistance which makes it more difficult for the body to address high glucose consumption. Usually when consumed with high fat and low fiber diet, you create a poor situation for your body to cope. Obesity is also the biggest cause for inflammation and other disease. So solve those and you shall be better off.
It is not proven that obesity drives IR, and not the other way around, or if they both correlate with some other factor driving them both... that is where I predict lifestyle factors play their role.
As you know, IR is quite high in slimmer countries like China and India, plus IR without obesity is not that uncommon here, though less common than with obesity here. This would seem to imply that obesity is not the driver of IR, imo.
I just dont see "losing weight helps with the same health issues in most people too" as a strong argument against keto and lchf being a great diet to use to treat those metabolic and cvd health issues.
I'm not overweight. If I eat keto my BG and insulin levels stay at more optimal levels. If I eat a lot of carbs, my BG and insulin (though I cant prove insulin) are way up. Inflammation is up too, as I can tell by my arthritis pain . Food drives that, and not extra weight.7 -
The bolded parts seem incongruous statements.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »There are both pro-Keto and anti-Keto people on this site. Sadly the anti-keto folks are really misinformed. If you have to lose a few vanity pounds and are in good health it may not be for you. If you are obese with other medical conditions such as gastro problems, high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes it's perfect for you. If you lost weight countless times with restricted calories and more exercise only to gain it back each time, it's perfect. If you are killing CICO and the scale is not moving, try it. Most people who say they tried, and didn't like it, were probably never completely adapted. It takes time. If you were pounding 300 carbs a day you can't just drop to 20 overnight. Proper keto requires work. You have to test with strips, or a breath or blood meter to make sure you are in ketosis. You tend to get constipated. The transition period to fix digestive issues can take over 3 months. If you make it, you will be so grateful. High fiber makes many people much worse inspite of what guidlines and most doctors say. Your blood pressure and A1C will drop like mad. Once you are in the groove you'll start dropping your blood pressure and diabetes medicine. Long before you've lost significant weight. You will have a huge jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity. You will feel great. You will fix your body. The pounds will come off at a rate you've never experienced before. You will learn how to make Hollandaise sauce if you don't know how to. A perfect keto breakfast is 2 eggs and hollandaise sauce (2 eggs and half a stick of real butter) and bacon or meat of your choice over 2 cups of steamed spinach. Many days one can eat this and not eat until the next day without any hunger. It's not just a fad as many still believe. It's a way of life. Very sustainable. And a much better one. The food is really insignificant when you look at the true health benefits though. The site below has over 500 thousand members. You don't have to join to use it. Look at the health benefits, the challenges, and the food you eat. Watch some of the many doctor videos. Check it out for yourself: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb#oopsie
Good Luck to all, even the the devil Jillian Michaels (That's a joke)
well I can say I have gastro problems and keto didnt do a dang thing for them. it made them worse and it gave me diarrhea I was not constipated. my gallbladder works fine so its not that. I was keto adapted as I did it for 2 months. my gastroenterologist also said that keto isnt going to "cure" gastro/digestive problems as many of those things are caused by other issues which change in diet rarely makes a big difference. I know for me my self it hasnt. ad for the the jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity I had a HUGE decline in mine. I didnt feel great, it didnt fix my body it made my health issues worse and those with type 2 and high blood pressure weight loss alone can improve those things keto or not. I lost 45 lbs eating more that 200g of carbs per day because I was in a deficit still. as for the hunger it made no difference I did not lose a lot of weight in the beginning either 5 lbs was the most I lost on keto and then it slowed down.
I was obese too all my health issues started when I was thin and at a healthy weight and some of them are genetic. keto is NOT going to fix those things. maybe for some that do keto will see some improvement in health issues(you still have to watch calories as you can gain weight doing keto). but for me it made my health decline at a rapid pace and I will say I will NEVER do it again. if someone else wants to do it or try it thhats their choice but people also need to be aware of the issues it can also cause on ones health. oh and keto is 50g net of carbs not 20. some athletes can be in ketosis eating more than 100g of carbs a day. it definitely was NOT sustainable for me at all. If I had kept going I probably would not be here now and thats not a joke or a jab at keto its what I experienced.
Those with familial hypercholesterolemia would be outliers though and may not have an average or typical response to lchf . Please excuse me if I have misremembered your situation.
My wife's GI got worse with low carb. She does not do well with high fat, especially with not having a gallbladder. And it got even worse after having a colon resecetion.
And keto just made me feel like crap. I suspect based on the low compliance rate, that all those benefits you feel apply to a smaller range of people than you suspect.
Your wife is probably not typical of those who benefit from keto the most either - typically those with metabolic syndrome, usually with a gallbladder, although there are a number doing lchf and keto successfully in the sub forums without one.
The only long term success rates I have seen with keto that go above and beyond plain old calorie moderation are in virta, and that was people reversing t2d. As I have said before, compliance seems to be higher when one is getting some great health benefits from the diet.
If one is not getting any benefits, or one is having added problems, it would be foolish to continue.
I've heard of reversing diabetes on calorie restrictions, so long as 10% or greater weight loss is maintained.
That is correct, and often without lchf. Lchf tends to be more effective for those diabetics who stick with it, but it isn't needed for all. Helpful, but not always required.
Not sure what the comparison is to. Is the claim that LCHF is more effective when stuck with no other considerations versus people who have lost 10% of body weight and "stick with [maintaining a 10% body weight loss]"? I assume effective means, having less markers for diabetes? Actually, I'd be interested in knowing what even are the markers being considered, as resting glucose seems like it really isn't going to be a relevant analysis, and an actual glucose challenge is usually going to go rather poorly for someone that is actually long term ketosis.
I'm not sure that it is ever required is the point of my 10% weight loss.
If someone loses 10% of their body weight and eats a bag of candy that is within their calorie budget, they will have poorer blood glucose control than someone who eats the same amount of calories in more typical low carb junk foods like pork rinds.
This also would be true for healthier meals: pasta marinara vs steak and a side salad, or bacon and eggs vs a muffin and orange juice.
Blood glucose is best controlled by what you eat. Insulin levels depend on that too. This my point. I agree that people will often have better BG if they lose weight, but BG will be steadiest and lowest in one who eats fewer carbs.
What is blood glucose control? I know what blood glucose level is. I know what a fasting glucose challenge is. I don't know what blood glucose control is.
If you just mean one not eating carbohydrates will have lower glucose than not eating carbohydrate, I fail to see the relevance or revelation. Simply having glucose in one's blood is not bad - having zero is actually the unhealthiest number.
Put simply, those with hyperinsulinemia tend to have higher BG numbers than is health or optimal. Spiking BG, even in non diabetics, is thought to contribute to health and circulatory problems in the long term. Good BG control is avoiding those spikes and keeping BG below prediabetic or diabetic ranges. The upper limit of healthy after a meal is 140 or 7.8; lower is healthier and easier to achieve with low carb. Zero is, of course, ridiculous to consider. A healthy lower limit is closer to 70 or 4.
Good blood glucose control is staying between the upper and lower limits. How you get there partially indicates your health. If you get there by injecting insulin, chances are your health is not great. If you manage it with diet, sleep and exercise, that would indicate better health.
I would think that good insulin control is actually the spikiest outcome. We say that someone's insulin sensitivity is a measure of how quickly their glucose returns to a near fasting level after a glucose containing meal enters the blood stream, yes? Well the fastest level in such an incident would be a very rapid spike down, would it not?
Rather, I think instead of spiky, we would want to talk about the maximum of the curve, or the time area under the curve above fasting.
Also, when you say thought to contribute, do you think it is actually causative, rather than a marker associated with a deeper pathology? It would seem at odds with what seems to be your interpretation of lipid profiles, but it could be understandable with the right empirical evidence.
It seems to me in studies I've seen, a low carbohydrate dieter (as in eater, not as in losing weight) is going to have low glucose, but my impression was their time area curves for insulin response is actually kind of poor as well as the peak, presumably because of the adaptions for a LC diet - even the pancreas and insulin are against speculative production for that glucose raining day. I definitely wouldn't describe that as spiky, nor good if the free floating glucose itself is problematic.
I disagree. It is thought that the BG and insulin spikes will lead to damage over time.
Plus if just looking at BG spikes, you miss what insulin us doing. Joseph Kraft collected a lot of data on insulin curves and diabetics, and I think his approach makes sense: abnormal insulin proceeds abnormal BG.
My ogtt showed slightly high BG response at 30 minutes (clise to 9) but then by 2hrs my bg was well below where I started (5.6 i thknk) showing an abnormal insulin response. At 2 hrs, my bg was at a healthy fasting level... I think it was a low 4.
Some with more advanced hyperinsulinemia will have a delayed lowering after a higher carb meal. True. Some low carbers will have a delayed response after becoming fat adapted because they are no longer primarily glucose burners, just like glucose burners can't adapt to high fat immediately. Its transient. For low carb meals there is no real time difference.
Spiking high BG and chronically elevated insulin are thought to be causative, but I tend to view the factors that cause those situations as the actual root cause, mainly lifestyle and food choices.
From what i have seen, obesity has the greatest impact, not necessarily having spikes in BG or glucose. Obesity drives insulin resistance which makes it more difficult for the body to address high glucose consumption. Usually when consumed with high fat and low fiber diet, you create a poor situation for your body to cope. Obesity is also the biggest cause for inflammation and other disease. So solve those and you shall be better off.
It is not proven that obesity drives IR, and not the other way around, or if they both correlate with some other factor driving them both... that is where I predict lifestyle factors play their role.
As you know, IR is quite high in slimmer countries like China and India, plus IR without obesity is not that uncommon here, though less common than with obesity here. This would seem to imply that obesity is not the driver of IR, imo.
I just dont see "losing weight helps with the same health issues in most people too" as a strong argument against keto and lchf being a great diet to use to treat those metabolic and cvd health issues.
I'm not overweight. If I eat keto my BG and insulin levels stay at more optimal levels. If I eat a lot of carbs, my BG and insulin (though I cant prove insulin) are way up. Inflammation is up too, as I can tell by my arthritis pain . Food drives that, and not extra weight.
There are a few things occluding the issue when discussing China and India. First, I don't think anyone wants to say obesity simpliciter is the cause without any consideration of genetics. Secondly, and relatedly, the way BMI has been built on European data has suggested revision for Asian populations - that overweight should start around 23 and obese at 27 instead of 25 and 30. Admittedly this could just be a difference in disease risk and genetics alone, or it could be that genetics and possibly environment drives a difference in lean body mass, which alters an appropriate BMI.
What seems unavoidable, and I think you've conceded in saying the correlation, is that BMI increasing and risk of IR both rise and fall in much of a lock step.
So I guess, we would need to ask, which one seems to have the weight of evidence of being able to drive the other. I'm not aware of any long term overfeeding studies that don't show a decrease in insulin sensitivity over time - that is, an ability to increase weight without leading towards IR, even if we don't want to say it is IR.
On the other hand, we can definitely see insulin sensitivity reduced (headed towards IR) without weight gain. It is pretty simple to induce IR like results by using bed-rest protocols. It is actually one of the research techniques.
I also just don't see IR->obesity over obesity->IR sounding right on what I know of going on at the cellular mechanics level. I believe we tend to see that fats cells become saturated first, and then insulin receptors on the surface are down regulated after. I think if insulin receptor down regulation was happening first, we'd see free lipids in the blood rise sharply after IR and before obesity. I think the pattern usually evolves the other way though - people can often become overweight without lipidemia and at or after obesity the lipidemia begins to drastically change.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
The bolded parts seem incongruous statements.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »There are both pro-Keto and anti-Keto people on this site. Sadly the anti-keto folks are really misinformed. If you have to lose a few vanity pounds and are in good health it may not be for you. If you are obese with other medical conditions such as gastro problems, high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes it's perfect for you. If you lost weight countless times with restricted calories and more exercise only to gain it back each time, it's perfect. If you are killing CICO and the scale is not moving, try it. Most people who say they tried, and didn't like it, were probably never completely adapted. It takes time. If you were pounding 300 carbs a day you can't just drop to 20 overnight. Proper keto requires work. You have to test with strips, or a breath or blood meter to make sure you are in ketosis. You tend to get constipated. The transition period to fix digestive issues can take over 3 months. If you make it, you will be so grateful. High fiber makes many people much worse inspite of what guidlines and most doctors say. Your blood pressure and A1C will drop like mad. Once you are in the groove you'll start dropping your blood pressure and diabetes medicine. Long before you've lost significant weight. You will have a huge jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity. You will feel great. You will fix your body. The pounds will come off at a rate you've never experienced before. You will learn how to make Hollandaise sauce if you don't know how to. A perfect keto breakfast is 2 eggs and hollandaise sauce (2 eggs and half a stick of real butter) and bacon or meat of your choice over 2 cups of steamed spinach. Many days one can eat this and not eat until the next day without any hunger. It's not just a fad as many still believe. It's a way of life. Very sustainable. And a much better one. The food is really insignificant when you look at the true health benefits though. The site below has over 500 thousand members. You don't have to join to use it. Look at the health benefits, the challenges, and the food you eat. Watch some of the many doctor videos. Check it out for yourself: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb#oopsie
Good Luck to all, even the the devil Jillian Michaels (That's a joke)
well I can say I have gastro problems and keto didnt do a dang thing for them. it made them worse and it gave me diarrhea I was not constipated. my gallbladder works fine so its not that. I was keto adapted as I did it for 2 months. my gastroenterologist also said that keto isnt going to "cure" gastro/digestive problems as many of those things are caused by other issues which change in diet rarely makes a big difference. I know for me my self it hasnt. ad for the the jump in cognitive thinking and mental clarity I had a HUGE decline in mine. I didnt feel great, it didnt fix my body it made my health issues worse and those with type 2 and high blood pressure weight loss alone can improve those things keto or not. I lost 45 lbs eating more that 200g of carbs per day because I was in a deficit still. as for the hunger it made no difference I did not lose a lot of weight in the beginning either 5 lbs was the most I lost on keto and then it slowed down.
I was obese too all my health issues started when I was thin and at a healthy weight and some of them are genetic. keto is NOT going to fix those things. maybe for some that do keto will see some improvement in health issues(you still have to watch calories as you can gain weight doing keto). but for me it made my health decline at a rapid pace and I will say I will NEVER do it again. if someone else wants to do it or try it thhats their choice but people also need to be aware of the issues it can also cause on ones health. oh and keto is 50g net of carbs not 20. some athletes can be in ketosis eating more than 100g of carbs a day. it definitely was NOT sustainable for me at all. If I had kept going I probably would not be here now and thats not a joke or a jab at keto its what I experienced.
Those with familial hypercholesterolemia would be outliers though and may not have an average or typical response to lchf . Please excuse me if I have misremembered your situation.
My wife's GI got worse with low carb. She does not do well with high fat, especially with not having a gallbladder. And it got even worse after having a colon resecetion.
And keto just made me feel like crap. I suspect based on the low compliance rate, that all those benefits you feel apply to a smaller range of people than you suspect.
Your wife is probably not typical of those who benefit from keto the most either - typically those with metabolic syndrome, usually with a gallbladder, although there are a number doing lchf and keto successfully in the sub forums without one.
The only long term success rates I have seen with keto that go above and beyond plain old calorie moderation are in virta, and that was people reversing t2d. As I have said before, compliance seems to be higher when one is getting some great health benefits from the diet.
If one is not getting any benefits, or one is having added problems, it would be foolish to continue.
I've heard of reversing diabetes on calorie restrictions, so long as 10% or greater weight loss is maintained.
That is correct, and often without lchf. Lchf tends to be more effective for those diabetics who stick with it, but it isn't needed for all. Helpful, but not always required.
Not sure what the comparison is to. Is the claim that LCHF is more effective when stuck with no other considerations versus people who have lost 10% of body weight and "stick with [maintaining a 10% body weight loss]"? I assume effective means, having less markers for diabetes? Actually, I'd be interested in knowing what even are the markers being considered, as resting glucose seems like it really isn't going to be a relevant analysis, and an actual glucose challenge is usually going to go rather poorly for someone that is actually long term ketosis.
I'm not sure that it is ever required is the point of my 10% weight loss.
If someone loses 10% of their body weight and eats a bag of candy that is within their calorie budget, they will have poorer blood glucose control than someone who eats the same amount of calories in more typical low carb junk foods like pork rinds.
This also would be true for healthier meals: pasta marinara vs steak and a side salad, or bacon and eggs vs a muffin and orange juice.
Blood glucose is best controlled by what you eat. Insulin levels depend on that too. This my point. I agree that people will often have better BG if they lose weight, but BG will be steadiest and lowest in one who eats fewer carbs.
What is blood glucose control? I know what blood glucose level is. I know what a fasting glucose challenge is. I don't know what blood glucose control is.
If you just mean one not eating carbohydrates will have lower glucose than not eating carbohydrate, I fail to see the relevance or revelation. Simply having glucose in one's blood is not bad - having zero is actually the unhealthiest number.
Put simply, those with hyperinsulinemia tend to have higher BG numbers than is health or optimal. Spiking BG, even in non diabetics, is thought to contribute to health and circulatory problems in the long term. Good BG control is avoiding those spikes and keeping BG below prediabetic or diabetic ranges. The upper limit of healthy after a meal is 140 or 7.8; lower is healthier and easier to achieve with low carb. Zero is, of course, ridiculous to consider. A healthy lower limit is closer to 70 or 4.
Good blood glucose control is staying between the upper and lower limits. How you get there partially indicates your health. If you get there by injecting insulin, chances are your health is not great. If you manage it with diet, sleep and exercise, that would indicate better health.
I would think that good insulin control is actually the spikiest outcome. We say that someone's insulin sensitivity is a measure of how quickly their glucose returns to a near fasting level after a glucose containing meal enters the blood stream, yes? Well the fastest level in such an incident would be a very rapid spike down, would it not?
Rather, I think instead of spiky, we would want to talk about the maximum of the curve, or the time area under the curve above fasting.
Also, when you say thought to contribute, do you think it is actually causative, rather than a marker associated with a deeper pathology? It would seem at odds with what seems to be your interpretation of lipid profiles, but it could be understandable with the right empirical evidence.
It seems to me in studies I've seen, a low carbohydrate dieter (as in eater, not as in losing weight) is going to have low glucose, but my impression was their time area curves for insulin response is actually kind of poor as well as the peak, presumably because of the adaptions for a LC diet - even the pancreas and insulin are against speculative production for that glucose raining day. I definitely wouldn't describe that as spiky, nor good if the free floating glucose itself is problematic.
I disagree. It is thought that the BG and insulin spikes will lead to damage over time.
Plus if just looking at BG spikes, you miss what insulin us doing. Joseph Kraft collected a lot of data on insulin curves and diabetics, and I think his approach makes sense: abnormal insulin proceeds abnormal BG.
My ogtt showed slightly high BG response at 30 minutes (clise to 9) but then by 2hrs my bg was well below where I started (5.6 i thknk) showing an abnormal insulin response. At 2 hrs, my bg was at a healthy fasting level... I think it was a low 4.
Some with more advanced hyperinsulinemia will have a delayed lowering after a higher carb meal. True. Some low carbers will have a delayed response after becoming fat adapted because they are no longer primarily glucose burners, just like glucose burners can't adapt to high fat immediately. Its transient. For low carb meals there is no real time difference.
Spiking high BG and chronically elevated insulin are thought to be causative, but I tend to view the factors that cause those situations as the actual root cause, mainly lifestyle and food choices.
From what i have seen, obesity has the greatest impact, not necessarily having spikes in BG or glucose. Obesity drives insulin resistance which makes it more difficult for the body to address high glucose consumption. Usually when consumed with high fat and low fiber diet, you create a poor situation for your body to cope. Obesity is also the biggest cause for inflammation and other disease. So solve those and you shall be better off.
It is not proven that obesity drives IR, and not the other way around, or if they both correlate with some other factor driving them both... that is where I predict lifestyle factors play their role.
As you know, IR is quite high in slimmer countries like China and India, plus IR without obesity is not that uncommon here, though less common than with obesity here. This would seem to imply that obesity is not the driver of IR, imo.
I just dont see "losing weight helps with the same health issues in most people too" as a strong argument against keto and lchf being a great diet to use to treat those metabolic and cvd health issues.
I'm not overweight. If I eat keto my BG and insulin levels stay at more optimal levels. If I eat a lot of carbs, my BG and insulin (though I cant prove insulin) are way up. Inflammation is up too, as I can tell by my arthritis pain . Food drives that, and not extra weight.
There are a few things occluding the issue when discussing China and India. First, I don't think anyone wants to say obesity simpliciter is the cause without any consideration of genetics. Secondly, and relatedly, the way BMI has been built on European data has suggested revision for Asian populations - that overweight should start around 23 and obese at 27 instead of 25 and 30. Admittedly this could just be a difference in disease risk and genetics alone, or it could be that genetics and possibly environment drives a difference in lean body mass, which alters an appropriate BMI.
What seems unavoidable, and I think you've conceded in saying the correlation, is that BMI increasing and risk of IR both rise and fall in much of a lock step.
So I guess, we would need to ask, which one seems to have the weight of evidence of being able to drive the other. I'm not aware of any long term overfeeding studies that don't show a decrease in insulin sensitivity over time - that is, an ability to increase weight without leading towards IR, even if we don't want to say it is IR.
On the other hand, we can definitely see insulin sensitivity reduced (headed towards IR) without weight gain. It is pretty simple to induce IR like results by using bed-rest protocols. It is actually one of the research techniques.
I also just don't see IR->obesity over obesity->IR sounding right on what I know of going on at the cellular mechanics level. I believe we tend to see that fats cells become saturated first, and then insulin receptors on the surface are down regulated after. I think if insulin receptor down regulation was happening first, we'd see free lipids in the blood rise sharply after IR and before obesity. I think the pattern usually evolves the other way though - people can often become overweight without lipidemia and at or after obesity the lipidemia begins to drastically change.
Asian cultures and Indian cultures tend to have poorer body compositions, in general than other cultures. What you don't see is those with good muscle mass with IR. And when IR is prevalent in those a normal BMI, they don't tend to have favorable body composition.6 -
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »I also just don't see IR->obesity over obesity->IR sounding right on what I know of going on at the cellular mechanics level. I believe we tend to see that fats cells become saturated first, and then insulin receptors on the surface are down regulated after. I think if insulin receptor down regulation was happening first, we'd see free lipids in the blood rise sharply after IR and before obesity. I think the pattern usually evolves the other way though - people can often become overweight without lipidemia and at or after obesity the lipidemia begins to drastically change.
This is what I find most compelling too. Also, I just don't see a particularly strong mechanism as to how IR would cause obesity vs. the reverse (with cells becoming saturated at different levels of overall body fat depending on genetics).1 -
Especially the below quote from it:
"I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and one way to do that is to make overly confident and categorical predictions. I still think it’s plausible that some insulin-related variable could be involved in obesity and/or fat loss, particularly 1) insulin resistance in energy-regulating circuits in the brain, and/or 2) blood glucose levels between meals, or some other signal of glucose availability. What I think is very unlikely to be correct is the hypothesis articulated by Ludwig, Ebbeling, and Taubes: the primary cause of obesity is carbohydrate-stimulated insulin acting on fat cells.
That said, I want to be clear that I think certain forms of carbohydrate are part of the explanation for obesity, and low-carbohydrate diets do cause fat loss in most people, with greater carbohydrate restriction typically resulting in greater fat loss. Like most diets, low-carbohydrate diets aren’t very effective against obesity in the average person, but they do have some effectiveness and they are certainly a valid tool in the toolbox. They may also be particularly useful for managing diabetes, although long-term outcomes remain uncertain."6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Especially the below quote from it:
"I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and one way to do that is to make overly confident and categorical predictions. I still think it’s plausible that some insulin-related variable could be involved in obesity and/or fat loss, particularly 1) insulin resistance in energy-regulating circuits in the brain, and/or 2) blood glucose levels between meals, or some other signal of glucose availability. What I think is very unlikely to be correct is the hypothesis articulated by Ludwig, Ebbeling, and Taubes: the primary cause of obesity is carbohydrate-stimulated insulin acting on fat cells.
That said, I want to be clear that I think certain forms of carbohydrate are part of the explanation for obesity, and low-carbohydrate diets do cause fat loss in most people, with greater carbohydrate restriction typically resulting in greater fat loss. Like most diets, low-carbohydrate diets aren’t very effective against obesity in the average person, but they do have some effectiveness and they are certainly a valid tool in the toolbox. They may also be particularly useful for managing diabetes, although long-term outcomes remain uncertain."
Especially that? I think you are picking and choosing what you are taking away. I'm sorry you feel the need to pick and choose.
I personally agree with the quoted bit, however, including the bolded portion.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Especially the below quote from it:
"I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and one way to do that is to make overly confident and categorical predictions. I still think it’s plausible that some insulin-related variable could be involved in obesity and/or fat loss, particularly 1) insulin resistance in energy-regulating circuits in the brain, and/or 2) blood glucose levels between meals, or some other signal of glucose availability. What I think is very unlikely to be correct is the hypothesis articulated by Ludwig, Ebbeling, and Taubes: the primary cause of obesity is carbohydrate-stimulated insulin acting on fat cells.
That said, I want to be clear that I think certain forms of carbohydrate are part of the explanation for obesity, and low-carbohydrate diets do cause fat loss in most people, with greater carbohydrate restriction typically resulting in greater fat loss. Like most diets, low-carbohydrate diets aren’t very effective against obesity in the average person, but they do have some effectiveness and they are certainly a valid tool in the toolbox. They may also be particularly useful for managing diabetes, although long-term outcomes remain uncertain."
Especially that? I think you are picking and choosing what you are taking away. I'm sorry you feel the need to pick and choose.
I personally agree with the quoted bit, however, including the bolded portion.
Thanks for agreeing with me about the quoted bit because I know I can be wrong.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Especially the below quote from it:
"I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and one way to do that is to make overly confident and categorical predictions. I still think it’s plausible that some insulin-related variable could be involved in obesity and/or fat loss, particularly 1) insulin resistance in energy-regulating circuits in the brain, and/or 2) blood glucose levels between meals, or some other signal of glucose availability. What I think is very unlikely to be correct is the hypothesis articulated by Ludwig, Ebbeling, and Taubes: the primary cause of obesity is carbohydrate-stimulated insulin acting on fat cells.
That said, I want to be clear that I think certain forms of carbohydrate are part of the explanation for obesity, and low-carbohydrate diets do cause fat loss in most people, with greater carbohydrate restriction typically resulting in greater fat loss. Like most diets, low-carbohydrate diets aren’t very effective against obesity in the average person, but they do have some effectiveness and they are certainly a valid tool in the toolbox. They may also be particularly useful for managing diabetes, although long-term outcomes remain uncertain."
Especially that? I think you are picking and choosing what you are taking away. I'm sorry you feel the need to pick and choose.
I personally agree with the quoted bit, however, including the bolded portion.
Thanks for agreeing with me about the quoted bit because I know I can be wrong.
I posted it, so hardly surprising I agree. Duh.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions