Curious About Keto

zeejane03

DevilsFan1 wrote: »

I swear. Every Keto thread turns into a sh*tshow. "Big grain". LMAO.

Before keto it was IF, (the initial threads when IF first went mainstream were very similar to the keto ones-all sorts of fantastical woo claims about the magical properties of IF). Before that it was paleo/primal eating etc etc etc.

There's always going to be a fad/gimmicky diet in the spotlight. With 45 million annual (yo-yo) dieters out there and a multi-billion dollar dieting industry in play, there's always going to be some 'One True Way' plan being pushed (and the plans 'experts' are always going to be making lots of money off of it).

eta edit

diannethegeek

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

Keto isn't how our ancestors ate for thousands of years, though. Starches and grains have been in the human diet since we developed fire. I don't know where this idea comes from, but it's absolutely not backed up by the archaeological record.

mph323

diannethegeek wrote: »

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

Keto isn't how our ancestors ate for thousands of years, though. Starches and grains have been in the human diet since we developed fire. I don't know where this idea comes from, but it's absolutely not backed up by the archaeological record.

People always forget about the "gatherer" part of hunter/gatherer society. Grubbing in the brush for edible plants and bugs doesn't have the same glamour as stalking the mammoth in the wild.

diannethegeek

dro6632 wrote: »

I want to lose 70lbs and I've heard great things about the Keto Diet. Has anyone tried it? Results?

Obviously you've seen by now that the keto diet gets a lot of discussion around here. I think most people would agree that it's a fine diet if it works best for you. A lot of people like it and find it a good fit for them. It wasn't a good fit for me and it had some negatives for me that are specific to my needs and wants. The important thing is to try it and see if you personally feel better on it.

You will find a lot of different claims about it ranging from mildly off-putting to downright ridiculous. You'll find a lot of biased documentaries about it on Youtube and Netflix (I include The Magic Pill in the "downright ridiculous" category). But at its heart -- unless you're using it to treat medical issues -- the keto diet works because it makes a deficit easier to stick to for some people. Try it. See if you like it. Ignore the nonsense.

kshama2001

diannethegeek wrote: »

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

Keto isn't how our ancestors ate for thousands of years, though. Starches and grains have been in the human diet since we developed fire. I don't know where this idea comes from, but it's absolutely not backed up by the archaeological record.

Here's more on that:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2015/09/11/ancient-oat-discovery-may-poke-more-holes-in-paleo-diet/

...The idea that prehistoric people didn’t eat grain “is just wrong. It’s misinformed,” says Huw Barton of Britain’s University of Leicester, who studies ancient starch grains. “People ate what they could get their hands on. Eating is surviving.”

Survival may have hinged on oats some 33,000 years ago at the Italian cave called Grotta Paglicci. Inside the cave, archaeologists have uncovered paintings and what must have been a cherished tool: a sandstone pestle about 5 inches (11.8 cm) long. Analysis reveals the pestle was studded with starch granules from a cornucopia of plant materials, including grasses similar to millet and what might be acorns, the researchers report in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But the most common starch was from oats.

...Pre-agricultural people also carbo-loaded on the tubers of the purple nut sedge, a noxious weed; underground stems of the cattail, which may have been ground into flour; and the seeds of wild wheat.

...Before farming began about 12,000 years ago, the human diet was absurdly, wildly variable, and fluid. How people fended off hunger depended on where they lived, the season of year, weather, and countless other factors.

“The fact that Paleolithic humans and their ancestors lived in wide assortments of habitats suggests—indeed, necessitates—an equally varied assortment of diets,” Georgia State University anthropologist Kenneth Sayers says via email.

helene4

Great for appetite control
But (TMI alert!!) I stopped getting my period when I ate according to the keto diet, and I ate plenty of low carb veggies too and followed that diet like a rule-following warrior lol

It was NOT healthy for me, so I stopped
But obviously from this thread it works for some people. Yay!

Currently, I simply avoid processed foods (cook everything at home) and avoid gluten (I’m allergic) and I’ve been doing good

Good luck!