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
-
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?
I think you need to elaborate on what you mean because brain cells have a tendency to be, well in the brain. Now if you mean neurons or nerve cells, sure, we have nerves connecting to the various parts of our digestive system.
It is rather a jump to say there's any logical or scientific implication that therefore gut bacteria influence brain processes. Particularly given the whole blood-brain barrier that exists to keep that kind of separation high. I've seen people spout claims of "90% of serotonin exists in your gut" thinking that implies anything about gut bacteria or health influencing depression, despite the fact that serotonin is a molecule too big to cross the blood-brain barrier - the serotonin is there because it acts as a contractile flow signaler, not because needing to blow your guts out is a state of bliss. Signalling hormones fairly repeatedly used across many domains and meanings because they are the ones are simple to produce.
To date, I'm not sure how much research really shows gut bacteria is in anyway causative of health or what we eat, rather than correlative. It is pretty easy to explain why gut bacteria can be correlative with what we eat without assuming it means they're causative.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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.26 -
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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
Another way to look at it, is eating excessive amounts of fat and the elimination of many healthy and beneficial foods sustainable?
Dietary carbs are non essential but glucose is essential to life. In fact, its so important that our bodies can make it from proteins and fats.
Trying to make a big deal that dietary carbs are non essential but not pointing out that our bodies only need 11g of alpha linolenic acid, is a bit dishonest. Protein requirements are roughly 30-40g to meet minimal requirements (depends on the amino acid composition). So honestly, if you want to make an argument, than a protein based diet is the biggest benefit.
In the end, the argument of essential vs non essential is pedantic and should never be part of a discussion. What is more important is what is optimal for the individual. And the health benefits and sustainability of carbs is what has helped me maintain my 50lb loss for 9 years.15 -
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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.4 -
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.
We're in a wonderful honeymoon stage of gut microbiome research, aren't we? There's starting to be enough evidence for us to think the gut microbiome is probably important, but there are so few specifics pinned down that anyone can claim anything in support of any way of eating, and no one can prove them wrong.
10 -
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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
Another way to look at it, is eating excessive amounts of fat and the elimination of many healthy and beneficial foods sustainable?
Dietary carbs are non essential but glucose is essential to life. In fact, its so important that our bodies can make it from proteins and fats.
Trying to make a big deal that dietary carbs are non essential but not pointing out that our bodies only need 11g of alpha linolenic acid, is a bit dishonest. Protein requirements are roughly 30-40g to meet minimal requirements (depends on the amino acid composition). So honestly, if you want to make an argument, than a protein based diet is the biggest benefit.
In the end, the argument of essential vs non essential is pedantic and should never be part of a discussion. What is more important is what is optimal for the individual. And the health benefits and sustainability of carbs is what has helped me maintain my 50lb loss for 9 years.
Some people may eat excessive amounts of fat while keto but implying that is required, or even how those who do it long term, is laughable. My only added fats are cream in my coffee and cheese.
Also, ketosis does not require the elimination of any healthy foods.
Carbs are non-essential. Our body makes enough. When you cut back on the amount of carbs you eat, you body even down regulated the amount of glucose it uses. Implying one needs to eats carbs is dishonest... Like saying we need to eat blood in order to have blood or we need to eat brains in order to have brains. I never said eating carbs was bad - I said it was non-essential.
A ketogenic need only be low in carbs to be ketogenic. I'm all for moderate to moderately high protein and getting enough fat without going excessive.
Avoiding most carbs, and the effects it has on my health, is what allowed me to lose 40lbs and maintain that for a number of years. No one diet fits all.11 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
Another way to look at it, is eating excessive amounts of fat and the elimination of many healthy and beneficial foods sustainable?
Dietary carbs are non essential but glucose is essential to life. In fact, its so important that our bodies can make it from proteins and fats.
Trying to make a big deal that dietary carbs are non essential but not pointing out that our bodies only need 11g of alpha linolenic acid, is a bit dishonest. Protein requirements are roughly 30-40g to meet minimal requirements (depends on the amino acid composition). So honestly, if you want to make an argument, than a protein based diet is the biggest benefit.
In the end, the argument of essential vs non essential is pedantic and should never be part of a discussion. What is more important is what is optimal for the individual. And the health benefits and sustainability of carbs is what has helped me maintain my 50lb loss for 9 years.
Some people may eat excessive amounts of fat while keto but implying that is required, or even how those who do it long term, is laughable. My only added fats are cream in my coffee and cheese.
Also, ketosis does not require the elimination of any healthy foods.
Carbs are non-essential. Our body makes enough. When you cut back on the amount of carbs you eat, you body even down regulated the amount of glucose it uses. Implying one needs to eats carbs is dishonest... Like saying we need to eat blood in order to have blood or we need to eat brains in order to have brains. I never said eating carbs was bad - I said it was non-essential.
A ketogenic need only be low in carbs to be ketogenic. I'm all for moderate to moderately high protein and getting enough fat without going excessive.
Avoiding most carbs, and the effects it has on my health, is what allowed me to lose 40lbs and maintain that for a number of years. No one diet fits all.
I've read claims that by ketoers that one can't have too high of protein or they'll be knocked out of ketosis, so I don't know about carbohydrates being low being the only requirement.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
Another way to look at it, is eating excessive amounts of fat and the elimination of many healthy and beneficial foods sustainable?
Dietary carbs are non essential but glucose is essential to life. In fact, its so important that our bodies can make it from proteins and fats.
Trying to make a big deal that dietary carbs are non essential but not pointing out that our bodies only need 11g of alpha linolenic acid, is a bit dishonest. Protein requirements are roughly 30-40g to meet minimal requirements (depends on the amino acid composition). So honestly, if you want to make an argument, than a protein based diet is the biggest benefit.
In the end, the argument of essential vs non essential is pedantic and should never be part of a discussion. What is more important is what is optimal for the individual. And the health benefits and sustainability of carbs is what has helped me maintain my 50lb loss for 9 years.
Some people may eat excessive amounts of fat while keto but implying that is required, or even how those who do it long term, is laughable. My only added fats are cream in my coffee and cheese.
Also, ketosis does not require the elimination of any healthy foods.
Carbs are non-essential. Our body makes enough. When you cut back on the amount of carbs you eat, you body even down regulated the amount of glucose it uses. Implying one needs to eats carbs is dishonest... Like saying we need to eat blood in order to have blood or we need to eat brains in order to have brains. I never said eating carbs was bad - I said it was non-essential.
A ketogenic need only be low in carbs to be ketogenic. I'm all for moderate to moderately high protein and getting enough fat without going excessive.
Avoiding most carbs, and the effects it has on my health, is what allowed me to lose 40lbs and maintain that for a number of years. No one diet fits all.
I've read claims that by ketoers that one can't have too high of protein or they'll be knocked out of ketosis, so I don't know about carbohydrates being low being the only requirement.
High protein will often lower your level of ketones but that is not an issue for most unless you need high ketones for a medical reason. The common levels of protein for ketosis are 20-30%. Some go lower and some go higher. I see most people doing somewhere in between 75-150g of protein. Going higher due to athletic demands is not unusual. I tend to be just under 100g on a mostly carnivore diet - I don't enjoy lean meat much.
But yes, the only requirement of a ketogenic diet is to be in ketosis the vast majority of the time, and eating low carb will do that. Eating a LOT (usually over 200+g) of protein will lower ketones for a while, but that's okay. Constant ketosis is not required. If it was, exercise would be skipped.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Sounds like your claim is that a diet of mostly or exclusively animal products is healthier than a vegetarian or vegan diet; and potentially is healthier than one that includes all food inclusive of animals, grains, fruits and vegetables. Or are you just staying there is no study supporting the converse of this, that a diet that includes grains and vegetables is “healthier” than a diet which prohibits them and promotes a high consumption of animal products?
If this is your claim or belief - what constitutes “healthier”? What would be the parameters that would define the framework of such a study?
And I’m speaking specifically for the average person who does not have medical reasons (as you do) to limit carbohydrates and grains. What would make one diet “healthier” than another, in your opinion?4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The biggest issue is that you severely limit the scope of what a study can have, which makes it impossible to demonstrate. And even if there was such a study, you would immediate discredit it. There are absolutely studies that show replacing SFA with whole grains (including cereals) and fibrous plant based foods provide improved health but have yet to see any study replacing meat with fibrous foods.10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Please reread your last sentence--irony.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »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.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.7 -
An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.2
-
ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
Re the bolded, I think you meant that sarcastically, but actually we do, whether they advertise it or not
:
I for one am neither though!
Just wanted to say I'm glad you found something that's working for you. People tend to translate many of us pushing back against keto being "healthier" as being against keto, and that's rarely what's being said. There are definitely some people that a keto way of eating has been the key for, and it sounds like you're one of them. Luckily there are lots of different ways to get to a healthy weight and a healthy status!8 -
ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?11 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »[
I've read claims that by ketoers that one can't have too high of protein or they'll be knocked out of ketosis, so I don't know about carbohydrates being low being the only requirement.
That is not necessarily true. That might be the cause for a select few, but that is not the written rule for all. I can personally consume a 1g protein per pound of body weight as well as 50-75g fast digesting carbs peri-workout and still stay in ketosis. But I will say that I do train very hard and have more muscle mass then the average keto'er.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?
It's interesting to me that frozen pizza and oreos are considered processed carbs...5 -
I think the conditions NVketomom already described are where it is an issue - people that truly need to be in ketosis for medical reasons - such as epileptics - are the ones that need to hold their protein down.magnusthenerd wrote: »[
I've read claims that by ketoers that one can't have too high of protein or they'll be knocked out of ketosis, so I don't know about carbohydrates being low being the only requirement.
That is not necessarily true. That might be the cause for a select few, but that is not the written rule for all. I can personally consume a 1g protein per pound of body weight as well as 50-75g fast digesting carbs peri-workout and still stay in ketosis. But I will say that I do train very hard and have more muscle mass then the average keto'er.
Along with your amount of muscle mass, your level of activity means it is unlikely that you have issues with insulin sensitivity. I would also guess you don't have a condition where being shortly out of ketosis will be impactful.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?
It's interesting to me that frozen pizza and oreos are considered processed carbs...
What would you consider frozen pizza and oreos? 3 oreos have 25g of carbs and 1g of protein. That's okay if you have the calories or you're not low carb. I would consider oreos (and frozen pizza) to be processed. Not that it's a bad thing...
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?
It's interesting to me that frozen pizza and oreos are considered processed carbs...
What would you consider frozen pizza and oreos? 3 oreos have 25g of carbs and 1g of protein. That's okay if you have the calories or you're not low carb. I would consider oreos (and frozen pizza) to be processed. Not that it's a bad thing...
I guess pizza and oreos have no fat in them...7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?
It's interesting to me that frozen pizza and oreos are considered processed carbs...
What would you consider frozen pizza and oreos? 3 oreos have 25g of carbs and 1g of protein. That's okay if you have the calories or you're not low carb. I would consider oreos (and frozen pizza) to be processed. Not that it's a bad thing...
Most so-called processed carbs are carbs+fat, often more fat than carbs (the case for many foods that get demonized as processed carbs). People are rarely talking about the many nutrient-dense options that include processed carbs, like canned beans, frozen veg, or even a sensible serving of brown rice with lots of veg and some lean protein.2 -
According to the nutrition that I found oreos have 7g of fat. I'm not keto but I would think that 7g of fat vs 25g of carbs is not a great trade off. Maybe...IDK. They taste good...that is all I know.
As far as pizza one place that I order from for 1 slice of a pepperoni pizza is 10g of fat and 40g of carbs...according to their nutrition facts. Even if the count fat is high so is the carb count. I do a moderation carb (100-150g) and I have trouble fitting it in. If I want pizza I just don't worry about it for that day.
Maybe I am missing the point that you were trying to make. They are carbs and they are processed. It's kind of like peanut butter...some will call it a protein but it has almost twice as much fat. I personally eat peanut butter for the fat and it tastes good.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?
It's interesting to me that frozen pizza and oreos are considered processed carbs...
What would you consider frozen pizza and oreos? 3 oreos have 25g of carbs and 1g of protein. That's okay if you have the calories or you're not low carb. I would consider oreos (and frozen pizza) to be processed. Not that it's a bad thing...
Most so-called processed carbs are carbs+fat, often more fat than carbs (the case for many foods that get demonized as processed carbs). People are rarely talking about the many nutrient-dense options that include processed carbs, like canned beans, frozen veg, or even a sensible serving of brown rice with lots of veg and some lean protein.
I think you have to look at the ratio of fats to carbs. Don't take me wrong...I eat pizza...I would eat an oreo if I knew I wouldn't eat the whole bag.
Yes...I know that most food is a combination of macros. If I am watching my carbs however pizza wouldn't be on the menu even if I need some extra fat. I would find a food that had a higher fat content and a lower carb content. The pizza that I order is 40g of carbs and 10g of fat.
I am not demonizing oreos, frozen pizza nor processed foods but if I want my carbs to stay in the moderate range I can't eat very much pizza.2 -
According to the nutrition that I found oreos have 7g of fat. I'm not keto but I would think that 7g of fat vs 25g of carbs is not a great trade off. Maybe...IDK. They taste good...that is all I know.
As far as pizza one place that I order from for 1 slice of a pepperoni pizza is 10g of fat and 40g of carbs...according to their nutrition facts. Even if the count fat is high so is the carb count. I do a moderation carb (100-150g) and I have trouble fitting it in. If I want pizza I just don't worry about it for that day.
Maybe I am missing the point that you were trying to make. They are carbs and they are processed. It's kind of like peanut butter...some will call it a protein but it has almost twice as much fat. I personally eat peanut butter for the fat and it tastes good.
Not that poster, but it's very frustrating when foods that are a combo of carbs and fat are dismissed as "processed carbs" making carbs the reason they aren't good choices. Fat is 9 calories per gram and carbs are only 4. My current package of Oreo Thins are 140 cals, 6g fat and 20g carbs. That means 40% of the cals are fat, that's not low fat. Most "processed carbs" are also "processed fats" but that never seems to be the concern. It's a semantics thing, but it's often used to bolster the "carbs are bad" argument. Pizza, potato chips, chocolate, ice cream... all get called "processed carbs" when they get plenty of their calorie density from fat too
8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »An awful lot of food scientists and paleontologists around here. What our ancient ancestors didn't have was processed carbs, unless there was a cave full of frozen pizza and Oreos somewhere. Keto is not a zero carb diet. I don't know anyone who can consume no carbs at all and not die. I eat between 20-30 a day, and they come mostly from vegetables and nuts. As I've found in the past, whatever diet you choose, if you stop adhering to it and go back to eating "normally", you're probably going to gain weight. I would not recommend starting any diet without getting your doctor's approval, as I did. Some people adapt and do very well with keto, and some don't. It's not for everyone. I don't miss the junk. And being a type 2 diabetic, I can't really afford to go back, anyway. The stakes are higher for me. Anyone who is generally healthy aside from being 15-20 lb overweight, I wouldn't necessarily recommend keto.
There are several keto proponents, one in this thread, who eat a carnivore diet of almost zero carbs. There are also lots of keto proponents who eat a variety of ultra processed foods as part of their low carb diet. To suggest that frozen pizza and Oreos are junk but bullet proof coffee, pepperoni sticks, and pork rinds are somehow fine because they aren’t processed “carbs” seems to be a false dilemma.
Do you feel that the consumption of any “processed carbs” is inherently unhealthy? Even if it is in moderation and in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet?
It's interesting to me that frozen pizza and oreos are considered processed carbs...
What would you consider frozen pizza and oreos? 3 oreos have 25g of carbs and 1g of protein. That's okay if you have the calories or you're not low carb. I would consider oreos (and frozen pizza) to be processed. Not that it's a bad thing...
Most so-called processed carbs are carbs+fat, often more fat than carbs (the case for many foods that get demonized as processed carbs). People are rarely talking about the many nutrient-dense options that include processed carbs, like canned beans, frozen veg, or even a sensible serving of brown rice with lots of veg and some lean protein.
I think you have to look at the ratio of fats to carbs. Don't take me wrong...I eat pizza...I would eat an oreo if I knew I wouldn't eat the whole bag.
I don't eat oreos so haven't checked them, but IME pizza and most dessert foods I like tend to be close to 1:1 carbs to fat if you look at calories. I've seen plenty with more fat than carbs. My chocolate chip cookie recipe in my recipe file has more fat (from butter) than carbs. With pizza it depends on the amount of cheese/olive oil, plus additions like olives (which I adore) vs. crust. Maybe because I tend to get thin crust it works out as noted. I've seen lots of ice creams, cakes, brownies, donuts where this is again true, and of course a huge percentage of the cals for foods like french fries, fried chicken, chips are from fat, yet some talk only about processed carbs.Yes...I know that most food is a combination of macros. If I am watching my carbs however pizza wouldn't be on the menu even if I need some extra fat. I would find a food that had a higher fat content and a lower carb content. The pizza that I order is 40g of carbs and 10g of fat.
Obviously someone doing keto/low carb wouldn't eat a normal kind of pizza. My point, and I think the other posters point, is calling those foods "processed carbs" as if they were primarily carbs and the reason you want to avoid making them too high a percentage of your diet (no matter how many carbs you eat) is not simply "carbs" or that the carbs are processed (the fats are processed too, and processing is not evil of course).
Very often it seems as if keto advocates speak about the high cal foods they used to over eat as "carbs" as if that's all they were or why they were easy to overeat or not ideal to make the mainstay of the diet, and that's extremely misleading, IMO.
Absolutely no one is claiming someone on keto can eat donuts, but someone on keto also cannot eat beans or fruit (in any but tiny quantities) or oats or sweet potatoes, and there are tons of (yes, processed!) keto versions of junk food.
None of these means keto is bad, just that the diet is more healthy because it excludes "processed carbs" is not a good argument. (Lots of people who aren't keto don't eat tons of junk food, plenty who are do. The question is the overall nutrient-density of the diet vs. actual needs.)
6 -
@AnnPT77 I agree we are in the early stages of gut microbiome research. It seems the microbiome research is getting on top of the role of the microbiome when it comes to Colorectal Cancer in a 7 nation research project of gut microbiota.
https://gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/en/two-new-studies-reveal-universal-gut-microbiome-signatures-in-colorectal-cancer/?fbclid=IwAR2fkbhDXchJu_ON_QXn7WwLmCWTTrsxSqRESHv1h8b8uE6Su6vJvjd3z8I
For a few years I have felt there was more to eating Keto when I comes to my health then just ketones. The fact that the gut microbiome impacts where Autism gets better for the longer term or not in up to 50% cases is an interesting study from ASU .
https://asunow.asu.edu/20170123-discoveries-asu-gut-microbe-study-shows-promise-potential-treatment-autism
In my case when I went Keto without intent my carb cravings quickly faded away back in 2014 and have not returned while eating my version of Keto for these years. We know the gut microbiome plays a role in our weight as well is nothing new.
https://scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-help-make-us-fat-and-thin/
May the exciting medical evidence that what we eat may bring health or sickness to some of us.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I think the conditions NVketomom already described are where it is an issue - people that truly need to be in ketosis for medical reasons - such as epileptics - are the ones that need to hold their protein down.
Along with your amount of muscle mass, your level of activity means it is unlikely that you have issues with insulin sensitivity. I would also guess you don't have a condition where being shortly out of ketosis will be impactful.
oh yes, for medical conditions like epileptics or metabolic damage, low protein is necessarily. I was the director of KetoPet Sanctuary and was managing the ketogentic diets for the 25+ dogs we had on site that had cancer. The daily protein consumption was extremely low for most if not all of the dogs as our goal was to keep blood glucose numbers as low as possible.
I do drift out of ketosis for 36-48 hours a few times a month when I do carb refeeds without any major issues. However I do notice a bit of flareup in my lower back and hips due to arthritis and my lower back being fused.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions