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: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Klieber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
I don't see how the expensive tissue hypothesis would show humans being in ketosis. In general, the limitations of the cost of intestinal tissues to eat carnivorously, and particularly that humans don't have them, suggests brains large enough to manipulate fire had to predate appreciable amounts of meat eating.
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Kleiber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
Google results:
Peter S. Kaufman - investment banker
Mark Mathan Cohen -- in which publication does he make a claim that humans have been in ketosis for 500,000 years?
Mike Eades -- a medical doctor who appears to have no anthropological publications
Blake Donaldson -- a medical doctor who appears to have no anthropological publications
Max Kleiber - biologist from the 1930s, unclear what relation his work has to anthropological claims
Leslie Aiello and Wheeler (Peter?) - Work is related to higher intake of animal protein helping early humans develop higher brain size, can't find any claims that humans have been in ketosis for 500,000 years. Her work seems to focus on a time well before 500,000 years ago.
Lierre Keith -- an activist mainly noteworthy for her anti-vegetarian writings. No background in anthropology that I can tell.
Michael Richards -- an actual anthropologist! Which paper of his are you referencing here?
Claire Cassidy -- another anthropologist! Which paper of hers are you referencing here?
Armand Ruffer -- a pathologist who died in 1917.
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity" - returns one Google hit: https://www.dietdoctor.com/look-patients-lipids-glucose-low-carb-vs-high-carb
"The expensive tissue hypothesis" - This hypothesis is pretty well known, but it is not an argument that humans have been eating a ketogenic diet for the past 500,000 years
""Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM" -- This isn't a claim that humans *have* been eating ketogenically for the past 500,000 years, it's an argument that one *can* measure what humans are eating using these markers. It's a way to address the inaccuracy of self-reporting. Here is the study I assume you're referencing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048703
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66" - This returns one result, to a reddit thread. I kept digging from there and was able to find some references to specific work by Richards. This particular link seems to be to a study of two Neanderthal populations which ate a lot of meat. There don't appear to be any claims about keto or any claims about what was eaten by those outside the groups studied. You can check it out here: https://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/7663 It's interesting stuff, to be sure, but for the claim that the ketogenic diet has been the standard worldwide for 500,000 years, it's irrelevant.
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145" -- Unfortunately, can't seem to find this online. That said, it's unlikely that a case study of two populations can be expanded to conclude that humans around the world were eating ketogenically for the past 500,000 years. Is that the claim made in the case study?
""Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136" - Having trouble locating this. Can you share the claim that is being made there?
There are a lot of names and links here. Some of them don't appear to be related at all to the claim, some do have more of a relation. Do you have anything directly related to your claim that keto has been the standard for 500,000 years?
This is different than the claim that keto may have been practiced in some parts of the world during some periods of history. I'm sure it has been, because the world has amazingly diverse foods available and humans have excelled, in large part, due to our ability to meet our nutritional needs with a wide variety of dietary styles.
I'm less interested in modern diet doctors making claims about keto than I am for actual evidence about the claim. Since diet doctors are unlikely to have done the fieldwork necessary to actually document the historical claim being made, can we leave them out of the discussion? (Of course, any high achieving doctors who are moonlighting in actual anthropology would qualify to potentially document the claim).
These were just some facts that I have found interesting.
I would think that a diet of mostly meat and fat, especially throughout the ice ages where there were almost no plants growing, that it would naturally lead to a state of ketosis since there wouldn't be enough natural carbohydrates to stay any considerable length of time in glucosis. Also, if you account for how different the plants were then and how much you'd have to eat to get enough. It's pretty hard to say that they were not in ketosis.
Thanks for putting in the work in the name of science and keeping an open mind. 😎
1. I think your envisioned version of an ice age isn't the same as actual ice ages. Not to mention, to have meat to eat requires animals that had to eat plants or at least other animals that... eat plants.
2. Recent genetic evidence in Arctic populations suggest that in such conditions their is natural selection against ketosis. Such people actually have genetic sweeps for a trait that suppresses ketosis, even though the gene increases infant mortality a fair degree.9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Klieber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
I don't see how the expensive tissue hypothesis would show humans being in ketosis. In general, the limitations of the cost of intestinal tissues to eat carnivorously, and particularly that humans don't have them, suggests brains large enough to manipulate fire had to predate appreciable amounts of meat eating.
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
And you would be wrong. See my previous post about the Inuit.
This is why science doesn't rely on intuition.
8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Klieber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
I don't see how the expensive tissue hypothesis would show humans being in ketosis. In general, the limitations of the cost of intestinal tissues to eat carnivorously, and particularly that humans don't have them, suggests brains large enough to manipulate fire had to predate appreciable amounts of meat eating.
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
We have a fairly good picture of what ancient man ate, though, and it wasn't just fat and meat. Idk where you got that idea, but even Otzi had plant matter in both his stomach and intestines.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Kleiber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
Google results:
Peter S. Kaufman - investment banker
Mark Mathan Cohen -- in which publication does he make a claim that humans have been in ketosis for 500,000 years?
Mike Eades -- a medical doctor who appears to have no anthropological publications
Blake Donaldson -- a medical doctor who appears to have no anthropological publications
Max Kleiber - biologist from the 1930s, unclear what relation his work has to anthropological claims
Leslie Aiello and Wheeler (Peter?) - Work is related to higher intake of animal protein helping early humans develop higher brain size, can't find any claims that humans have been in ketosis for 500,000 years. Her work seems to focus on a time well before 500,000 years ago.
Lierre Keith -- an activist mainly noteworthy for her anti-vegetarian writings. No background in anthropology that I can tell.
Michael Richards -- an actual anthropologist! Which paper of his are you referencing here?
Claire Cassidy -- another anthropologist! Which paper of hers are you referencing here?
Armand Ruffer -- a pathologist who died in 1917.
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity" - returns one Google hit: https://www.dietdoctor.com/look-patients-lipids-glucose-low-carb-vs-high-carb
"The expensive tissue hypothesis" - This hypothesis is pretty well known, but it is not an argument that humans have been eating a ketogenic diet for the past 500,000 years
""Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM" -- This isn't a claim that humans *have* been eating ketogenically for the past 500,000 years, it's an argument that one *can* measure what humans are eating using these markers. It's a way to address the inaccuracy of self-reporting. Here is the study I assume you're referencing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048703
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66" - This returns one result, to a reddit thread. I kept digging from there and was able to find some references to specific work by Richards. This particular link seems to be to a study of two Neanderthal populations which ate a lot of meat. There don't appear to be any claims about keto or any claims about what was eaten by those outside the groups studied. You can check it out here: https://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/7663 It's interesting stuff, to be sure, but for the claim that the ketogenic diet has been the standard worldwide for 500,000 years, it's irrelevant.
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145" -- Unfortunately, can't seem to find this online. That said, it's unlikely that a case study of two populations can be expanded to conclude that humans around the world were eating ketogenically for the past 500,000 years. Is that the claim made in the case study?
""Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136" - Having trouble locating this. Can you share the claim that is being made there?
There are a lot of names and links here. Some of them don't appear to be related at all to the claim, some do have more of a relation. Do you have anything directly related to your claim that keto has been the standard for 500,000 years?
This is different than the claim that keto may have been practiced in some parts of the world during some periods of history. I'm sure it has been, because the world has amazingly diverse foods available and humans have excelled, in large part, due to our ability to meet our nutritional needs with a wide variety of dietary styles.
I'm less interested in modern diet doctors making claims about keto than I am for actual evidence about the claim. Since diet doctors are unlikely to have done the fieldwork necessary to actually document the historical claim being made, can we leave them out of the discussion? (Of course, any high achieving doctors who are moonlighting in actual anthropology would qualify to potentially document the claim).
These were just some facts that I have found interesting.
I would think that a diet of mostly meat and fat, especially throughout the ice ages where there were almost no plants growing, that it would naturally lead to a state of ketosis since there wouldn't be enough natural carbohydrates to stay any considerable length of time in glucosis. Also, if you account for how different the plants were then and how much you'd have to eat to get enough. It's pretty hard to say that they were not in ketosis.
Thanks for putting in the work in the name of science and keeping an open mind. 😎
1. I think your envisioned version of an ice age isn't the same as actual ice ages. Not to mention, to have meat to eat requires animals that had to eat plants or at least other animals that... eat plants.
2. Recent genetic evidence in Arctic populations suggest that in such conditions their is natural selection against ketosis. Such people actually have genetic sweeps for a trait that suppresses ketosis, even though the gene increases infant mortality a fair degree.
Yes there were plants. But, just beacuse cows eat grass doesn't mean we do.
My theory is that arctic regions induce a stress hormone response. And, maybe after generations of this chronic response, which raised insulin, may have tweaked their genetics for a higher need for gluconeogenesis. The infant mortality rate makes sense as well since most babies are born in ketosis.
25 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Kleiber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
Google results:
Peter S. Kaufman - investment banker
Mark Mathan Cohen -- in which publication does he make a claim that humans have been in ketosis for 500,000 years?
Mike Eades -- a medical doctor who appears to have no anthropological publications
Blake Donaldson -- a medical doctor who appears to have no anthropological publications
Max Kleiber - biologist from the 1930s, unclear what relation his work has to anthropological claims
Leslie Aiello and Wheeler (Peter?) - Work is related to higher intake of animal protein helping early humans develop higher brain size, can't find any claims that humans have been in ketosis for 500,000 years. Her work seems to focus on a time well before 500,000 years ago.
Lierre Keith -- an activist mainly noteworthy for her anti-vegetarian writings. No background in anthropology that I can tell.
Michael Richards -- an actual anthropologist! Which paper of his are you referencing here?
Claire Cassidy -- another anthropologist! Which paper of hers are you referencing here?
Armand Ruffer -- a pathologist who died in 1917.
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity" - returns one Google hit: https://www.dietdoctor.com/look-patients-lipids-glucose-low-carb-vs-high-carb
"The expensive tissue hypothesis" - This hypothesis is pretty well known, but it is not an argument that humans have been eating a ketogenic diet for the past 500,000 years
""Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM" -- This isn't a claim that humans *have* been eating ketogenically for the past 500,000 years, it's an argument that one *can* measure what humans are eating using these markers. It's a way to address the inaccuracy of self-reporting. Here is the study I assume you're referencing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048703
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66" - This returns one result, to a reddit thread. I kept digging from there and was able to find some references to specific work by Richards. This particular link seems to be to a study of two Neanderthal populations which ate a lot of meat. There don't appear to be any claims about keto or any claims about what was eaten by those outside the groups studied. You can check it out here: https://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/7663 It's interesting stuff, to be sure, but for the claim that the ketogenic diet has been the standard worldwide for 500,000 years, it's irrelevant.
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145" -- Unfortunately, can't seem to find this online. That said, it's unlikely that a case study of two populations can be expanded to conclude that humans around the world were eating ketogenically for the past 500,000 years. Is that the claim made in the case study?
""Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136" - Having trouble locating this. Can you share the claim that is being made there?
There are a lot of names and links here. Some of them don't appear to be related at all to the claim, some do have more of a relation. Do you have anything directly related to your claim that keto has been the standard for 500,000 years?
This is different than the claim that keto may have been practiced in some parts of the world during some periods of history. I'm sure it has been, because the world has amazingly diverse foods available and humans have excelled, in large part, due to our ability to meet our nutritional needs with a wide variety of dietary styles.
I'm less interested in modern diet doctors making claims about keto than I am for actual evidence about the claim. Since diet doctors are unlikely to have done the fieldwork necessary to actually document the historical claim being made, can we leave them out of the discussion? (Of course, any high achieving doctors who are moonlighting in actual anthropology would qualify to potentially document the claim).
These were just some facts that I have found interesting.
I would think that a diet of mostly meat and fat, especially throughout the ice ages where there were almost no plants growing, that it would naturally lead to a state of ketosis since there wouldn't be enough natural carbohydrates to stay any considerable length of time in glucosis. Also, if you account for how different the plants were then and how much you'd have to eat to get enough. It's pretty hard to say that they were not in ketosis.
Thanks for putting in the work in the name of science and keeping an open mind. 😎
1. I think your envisioned version of an ice age isn't the same as actual ice ages. Not to mention, to have meat to eat requires animals that had to eat plants or at least other animals that... eat plants.
2. Recent genetic evidence in Arctic populations suggest that in such conditions their is natural selection against ketosis. Such people actually have genetic sweeps for a trait that suppresses ketosis, even though the gene increases infant mortality a fair degree.
Yes there were plants. But, just beacuse cows eat grass doesn't mean we do.
My theory is that arctic regions induce a stress hormone response. And, maybe after generations of this chronic response, which raised insulin, may have tweaked their genetics for a higher need for gluconeogenesis. The infant mortality rate makes sense as well since most babies are born in ketosis.
That's not a theory in the scientific sense.
And I don't think most babies are born in ketosis. Breast milk certainly isn't a ketogenic diet.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Klieber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
I don't see how the expensive tissue hypothesis would show humans being in ketosis. In general, the limitations of the cost of intestinal tissues to eat carnivorously, and particularly that humans don't have them, suggests brains large enough to manipulate fire had to predate appreciable amounts of meat eating.
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
It looks as though the neanderthals ate mostly meat. Neanderthals may not be ancestors of all, but as someone of northern European heritage, it is possible. It's also likely that my ancestors only ate plants seasonally since there is not a large amount of fresh fruit and vegetables available year round in the north.
The fairly recent article on neanderthal diet: https://www.archaeology.org/news/7416-190219-neanderthal-carnivore-diet
1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Klieber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
I don't see how the expensive tissue hypothesis would show humans being in ketosis. In general, the limitations of the cost of intestinal tissues to eat carnivorously, and particularly that humans don't have them, suggests brains large enough to manipulate fire had to predate appreciable amounts of meat eating.
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
In addition to what others have said, why is the Ice Age (when Europeans were largely in southern refugiums) particularly relevant given the long span of human history and how well we adapt to different conditions (and what we see from Arctic peoples in our own era -- who are not in ketosis)?
Also, if we are considering our own ancestors, people often are unaware of migrations, and you really have no idea where your ancestors were in paleolithic times. Most of the paleolithic population of Europe got replaced by the first farmers (from warmer regions), and then there was another replacement, at least in much of Europe, varying depending on the place, around 4000 YBP. (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/90-neolithic-british-gene-pool-was-replaced-beaker-immigrants-009636)
Hunter-gatherers for the most part (outside of the most extreme climates, where again we see an adaptation against ketosis) tends NOT to be hugely meat based, although meat is often prized, and includes lots of plants and far more fiber than anyone in first world populations.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
For people who eat a lot of vegetables, it's possible to eat enough to interfere with ketosis even if they're non-starchy. Based on what I've read about keto, I would probably have to personally limit my vegetable consumption if I wanted to try it.
When I Google those names, I get a lot of YouTube links and non-historical nutritional advice. What research in particular are you citing for the claim that our species has been in ketosis for the past 500,000 years? None of them appear to be anthropologists or associated with research documenting this particular claim.
Peter S. Kaufman
Mark Mathan Cohen, PH. D.
Dr. Mike Eades
Blake Donaldson, M. D.
Max Klieber (Kleiber's Law)
Leslie Aiello & Wheeler
Lierre Keith
Michael Richards
Claire Cassidy
Armand Ruffer
Studies:
"Generations in the evolution of humanity"
" The expensive tissue hypothesis"
"Stable isotope ratios as biomarkers for health resesrch" O'Brien DM
"Richards, MP et al (2000) PNAS 97(13):7663-66"
"Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two populations, Nutritional Anthropology, Redgrave publishing Co. 117-145"
"Warner C(2015) Ancient Human Microbiomes, J Hum Evol 79:125-136"
I don't see how the expensive tissue hypothesis would show humans being in ketosis. In general, the limitations of the cost of intestinal tissues to eat carnivorously, and particularly that humans don't have them, suggests brains large enough to manipulate fire had to predate appreciable amounts of meat eating.
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
It looks as though the neanderthals ate mostly meat. Neanderthals may not be ancestors of all, but as someone of northern European heritage, it is possible. It's also likely that my ancestors only ate plants seasonally since there is not a large amount of fresh fruit and vegetables available year round in the north.
The fairly recent article on neanderthal diet: https://www.archaeology.org/news/7416-190219-neanderthal-carnivore-diet
Yes, most Europeans and Asians may well have Neanderthal ancestry, but only a tiny bit, it's hardly relevant to diet.6 -
I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
Other than the smell thing, which is odd, that all sounds normal and common for people who need to and lose 85 lbs.
If you had a lot to lose or are a big guy, 85 in 9 months isn't that surprising either -- although great job!
Point is that there are lots of ways people do that besides keto. Keto may have been the easiest way for you, but for many of us it wouldn't be, or we tend to eat healthier diets not doing keto. So once again, keto is neither good nor bad. It's a way of eating that works well for some people, but likely not most people.
I agree that it may not be for everyone. With that said. There are many factors that come into play when trying to optimize yourself in any way. Emotions, habits, cravings, schedules, social cues, medical problems, etc. If we take the weight lose aspect out of it right, and only focus on what happens to our bodies when we are using minimal glucose, then there isn't any evidence left that we need any sort of carbohydrates for any reason.
I agree that one can eat a no, or essentially no carb diet and not die. I don't personally believe that is healthy because I don't agree that it would be a healthy choice to cut out vegetables, and most would not eat the variety of organ meats necessary for adequate nutrition (which doesn't mean they'd die as a result, but I think has longer term effects). However, I also believe this is rather irrelevant, as most who do keto eat some carbs (ideally vegetables), and one can get adequate veg doing keto -- I just found it more stressful than necessary and did not like that I was cutting out a variety of healthy foods I normally eat, having to cut back on veg (I eat a lot of servings of non starchy veg normally, and not just leafy ones), and more meat than I prefer.Through the research I've done, fueling the human body on fat and ketones seems to be optimal for the majority of the human population in almost every aspect.
I don't believe this claim is grounded in anything credible, and it's inconsistent with the evidence about traditional human diets, blue zones, and the fact that those few cultures who were necessarily eating very low carbs regularly have a genetic modification that means they are NOT in ketosis when most of us would be.
But it might be the easiest way for you to eat in a healthful, calorie-appropriate manner, so carry on.
You're right. It is irrelevant. Check out Paul Saladino.
You shouldn't have had to cut out many veggies other than starches. And, there are vegan ketoers so too much meat for you shouldn't have been an issue either.
Finding it frustrating and giving up is an emotional response as stated before.
Our species has survived for around 500k years mostly in a state of ketosis with few exceptions. There is tons of evidence. Start with Mike Eades, Tim Noakes, Stephen Phinney, Paul Mason, Nina Teicholz, and Ken Berry.
Wow, I'm seriously impressed that a species that hasn't even been in existence for 500ky has managed to be in a state of ketosis for that long!!
Even being nice and assuming you meant our genus, you're still wrong though, as has been adequately pointed out by others in this thread.16 -
No cheat days on Keto. New research suggests that consuming glucose while on Keto diet can damage blood vessels. https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2019/03/27/on-the-keto-diet-ditch-the-cheat-day-says-ubc-study/9
-
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
Armchair paleontology is fun, but there are plenty of people out there doing all kinds of research.
1) Another very strong contender for the "bigger brain" theory is that we developed cooking, and we applied heat to meat, tubers, and seeds -- increasing bioavailability and allowing us to spend less time procuring and consuming food.. Interestingly, tubers don't show up in isotope analyses of protein intake, but are an important source of calories in populations that consume them.
2) Both tooth plaque analysis and coprolite analysis has found strong evidence that neanderthals were eating plants as well as meat. While the isotopic evidence shows most of their protein came from animal sources, it can't tell us what non-protein foods were consumed, and their teeth and poop both suggest they were in fact they were not carnivores, but omnivores.
3) Interestingly, while neanderthals appear to have gotten most of their protein from animal sources? The modern humans who replaced them show "A wider range of isotopic values," suggesting that they were more adaptable omnivores than their neanderthal cousins -- from whom they had been separated by hundreds of thousands of years. This very adaptability is theorized to be one reason modern humans succeeded in colonizing every ecological niche on every continent except antartica.
4) Neanderthals are not the greatest model for ideal *anything* for sapiens. Their ancestors diverged from ours between 400,000 and 800,000 years ago and the northern european neanderthals became an isolated population that was increasingly adapted for an environment that then disappeared as the ice age ended.12 -
I would think that a mostly meat and fat diet would naturally put them into ketosis. From what I understand, we may have developed a bigger brain by trading the energy it takes to digest plants. Nutrients in meat are more bioavailable and the energy in fat provides more than twice as many calories per gram than carbohydrates. Less energy for digestion means more for a bigger brain. Just my thoughts.
Armchair paleontology is fun, but there are plenty of people out there doing all kinds of research.
1) Another very strong contender for the "bigger brain" theory is that we developed cooking, and we applied heat to meat, tubers, and seeds -- increasing bioavailability and allowing us to spend less time procuring and consuming food.. Interestingly, tubers don't show up in isotope analyses of protein intake, but are an important source of calories in populations that consume them.
2) Both tooth plaque analysis and coprolite analysis has found strong evidence that neanderthals were eating plants as well as meat. While the isotopic evidence shows most of their protein came from animal sources, it can't tell us what non-protein foods were consumed, and their teeth and poop both suggest they were in fact they were not carnivores, but omnivores.
3) Interestingly, while neanderthals appear to have gotten most of their protein from animal sources? The modern humans who replaced them show "A wider range of isotopic values," suggesting that they were more adaptable omnivores than their neanderthal cousins -- from whom they had been separated by hundreds of thousands of years. This very adaptability is theorized to be one reason modern humans succeeded in colonizing every ecological niche on every continent except antartica.
4) Neanderthals are not the greatest model for ideal *anything* for sapiens. Their ancestors diverged from ours between 400,000 and 800,000 years ago and the northern european neanderthals became an isolated population that was increasingly adapted for an environment that then disappeared as the ice age ended.
That last one would suggest that even in people carrying neanderthal genes, there would be selection pressure against retaining their genes related to diet adaptation.1 -
carakirkey wrote: »No cheat days on Keto. New research suggests that consuming glucose while on Keto diet can damage blood vessels. https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2019/03/27/on-the-keto-diet-ditch-the-cheat-day-says-ubc-study/
Full text here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/3/489/htm
It appears that the problems were from a combination of the short-term high fat diet immediately followed by the dose of glucose. Meaning that the glucose might not have caused this effect in someone not on said high fat diet. Also, this was only in 9 people (healthy young men).
Note the beginning of the Discussion "The main findings of the present study are that the one-week low-carbohydrate high-fat diet, which causes relative glucose intolerance..." My question is whether the vessel damage would have occurred in people after the glucose but without the high fat diet.0 -
I am 36. I've lost 85 pounds in 9 months. Every single marker of inflimation is gone. All of my aches and pains are gone. My mind is magnitudes more focused and clear. I have energy all day and jump out of bed with more vigor than when I was a kid. My grocery bill has been cut by 75%. I can smell now, which I could never do for my entire life. And, everything tastes better. My sexy drive is amazing. I haven't been sick since starting, yet everyone around me has been sick mutiple times. All of these wonderful side effect with NO EXERCISE!
Technically "keto" is any intake in nutrients that puts you in a state of ketosis. Which is pretty hard to do sometimes with carbohydrates. As far as I'm concerned, through my experience and personal research, being in ketosis or even having more metabolic flexibility is probably the most optimal way of being for 90% of humans.
I would love to see actually research to support this. Also, unless you are running periods of keto and ultra high carbs, you won't increase metabolic flexibility. Metabolic flexibility comes from pushing periods of focused intakes of high fats or carbs. This is so your body can increase oxidation rates. Its why many cyclist on the off season will run keto diets. Additionally, if you are only keto, you will induce diet induced insulin resistance. So if at any point you binge with carbs, your body will not have a great ability to deal with it.
I don't doubt your experiences, but mine is the complete opposite with keto. Extreme lethargy, reduced athletic performance, increased hunger/reduced satiety. Overall, completely miserable. Same thing happened with IF.
My body responses optimally to high protein, high carb, low fat. I lost 50 lbs about 9 years ago and kept it off. All my metabolic markers are fantastic. I don't have pains, mental clarity issues, acne or anything. I have seen well over 100% increases on all my big lifts and can play tennis for hours. All of this while having 2 kids below 3 years old and working 10-12 hour days.7 -
I lost 140 pounds doing lowcarb/keto through the past 9 years. I have no longer pains in my stumack because of ibs, my mucle and bone-pains due to fibro are allmost gone, alot fewer infections, I have no migrains anymore, my body absorbs vitamins/minerals much better, I sleep better, I don't have that much anxiety as I used to. For me, this is the perfect way of eating, I'm so much healthier. My doctor advised me to start, I hadn't heard of it before I started, and I was very surprised of how fast the healthbenefits happened. The weightloss has gone slower, but steadily, still losing.
2 -
Keto seems to be a very individual thing. It works for some, not for others. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone with just a few pounds to lose. I'm a lifelong food addict and a type 2 diabetic, about 120 lb overweight when I started. I've tried every diet out there and failed at every one. Keto is the only thing that's worked for me. It's the only diet I've been able to stick to, and the only one that's given me good solid weight loss and lowered my blood glucose to normal levels for the first time in years. I don't buy keto test strips, I don't make myself nuts about whether or not I'm in ketosis. The scale, the glucometer and my own body tells me what I need to know.6
-
I lost 140 pounds doing lowcarb/keto through the past 9 years. I have no longer pains in my stumack because of ibs, my mucle and bone-pains due to fibro are allmost gone, alot fewer infections, I have no migrains anymore, my body absorbs vitamins/minerals much better, I sleep better, I don't have that much anxiety as I used to. For me, this is the perfect way of eating, I'm so much healthier. My doctor advised me to start, I hadn't heard of it before I started, and I was very surprised of how fast the healthbenefits happened. The weightloss has gone slower, but steadily, still losing.
How did you establish the bolded statement?8 -
For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.10 -
ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.2 -
I'm not doing keto right now because I'm not feeling the commitment right now that it takes to cook all my own meals and eat a very strict diet, but when I did it years ago, it worked amazingly well. I lost like 30+ pounds effortlessly. It pretty much fell off. And I would have days when I would eat 3,000 cals of keto appropriate food, as a pretty inactive 5'7" woman and I still lost weight on it. So if you can commit to it and do it right, its great.14
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.
Yes and we know gut flora can direct diet as in their signals to be the brain driving things like carb binges for some of us.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.
Yes and we know gut flora can direct diet as in their signals to be the brain driving things like carb binges for some of us.
11 -
johnslater461 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.
Yes and we know gut flora can direct diet as in their signals to be the brain driving things like carb binges for some of us.
Why do you think 10% of human brain cells exist along the path from our front door to our back door?12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.
Yes and we know gut flora can direct diet as in their signals to be the brain driving things like carb binges for some of us.
Why do you think 10% of human brain cells exist along the path from our front door to our back door?
8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.
Yes and we know gut flora can direct diet as in their signals to be the brain driving things like carb binges for some of us.
Why do you think 10% of human brain cells exist along the path from our front door to our back door?
And as usual it looks like you're playing fast and loose with definitions and numbers.
One can only assume you're referring to the
enteric nervous system, and while it is comprised of neurons, so are every nerve cell in your body. So calling them "brain cells" is disingenuous, at best.
And the percentage of neurons in the ENS is around 0.5%, so you're off by an order of magnitude.
13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html
".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].
Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:
"Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."
That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."
So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
Gut flora reflects diet. If someone eats a carnivore diet, they won't have the right gut flora to deal with a higher fiber, higher veg diet, and will have to adjust to the new diet. Doesn't mean the higher fiber, higher veg diet isn't overall healthier on average.
Yes and we know gut flora can direct diet as in their signals to be the brain driving things like carb binges for some of us.
Some of us recognize that carb binges are a result of a lack of self control instead of making claims with no science to support them.16
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