Keto diets and other special snowflake fads
Replies
-
""Questions remain about the possible association of lowcarbohydrate
diets with the risk of colon cancer, heart
disease, diabetes, and hypertriglyceridemia.""
That article was indeed written over 11 years ago. Quite a bit of medical research has revealed a different trend and results and many doctors are changing their stances on low carb dieting.
High carb diets are one of the greatest causes for Type 2 Diabetes, especially among the sedentary.
Four years ago, my Triglycerides were over 600, which is the precursor to diabetes. By cutting down my carbs, especially processed, simple carbs, like sugar and breads, etc. I have lowered my triglyceride level to almost normal. 2 years ago they were at 200 and when I get my next blood work done in a few weeks, after losing another 30 pounds, I expect that they will be under 150.
While I may not agree on living on a diet that says you can eat all the bacon, fried chicken, cheesy hamburgers, etc that you want to eat, and not have to limit calories, a common sense approach of lean meats, cheeses, healthy fats, and non starch veggies and some fruits, within a moderate calorie level, and keeping your carbs lower, is working for me and for hundreds more people that I have found on this site alone.
I have never had a doctor that told me I had to eat bread to be healthy.
Carbs do not CAUSE type 2. Obesity and/or poor diet does. Once you have it, yes carbs BECOME a concern. Type is curable. . . .lose weight, then you can eat yummy carbs again with a balanced diet0 -
The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?0 -
The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.0 -
The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html0 -
The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
What has happened with the rest of your body composition in this time? LBM, lean muscle mass etc.0 -
I'm so glad that I'm such a "special snowflake". Just a simple change in diet resolved: prediabetes, bloating, acid reflux, gas, abdominal pain, extreme depression, anxiety, insomnia, chronic fatique, chronic joint pain, chronic neurological problems, circulation problems, colds, flus, chronic bronchitis, dizziness, headaches, allergies, sinusitis, scaly skin, uncontrollable cravings, bingeing.... oh and don't forget the lovely side effect of weight loss, improved mood, and increased energy. (Shall I list my child's health improvements too?)
Yeah, trying to base one's diet on whole, natural foods is such a stupid "fad". However, I think I'll keep doing it, but thanks anyway. I'm happy to keep "suffering" with my "restrictive" way of eating. Eating things like steak, fried mushrooms, and salad is just so totally unsustainable.
(Strangely, other people who have changed to a similar diet report many of the same health improvements; I guess we are all just deluded "special snowflakes".)0 -
The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Absolutely this.
0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
What has happened with the rest of your body composition in this time? LBM, lean muscle mass etc.
All of my weight loss was body fat and connective tissue while adding significant muscle mass, all because I have superior fuel partitioning.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
What has happened with the rest of your body composition in this time? LBM, lean muscle mass etc.
All of my weight loss was body fat and connective tissue while adding significant muscle mass, all because I have superior fuel partitioning.
And this was verified by what method?0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
What has happened with the rest of your body composition in this time? LBM, lean muscle mass etc.
All of my weight loss was body fat and connective tissue while adding significant muscle mass, all because I have superior fuel partitioning.
And this was verified by what method?
I like long quote chains, too.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
And yet your profile states it took you 11 months to lose the weight (which would be somewhat more reasonable, given your starting weight). So which is it?0 -
OP should be properly prepared to be attacked by sugar people before posting such a link0
-
Save your breath man. You can cite studies, quote docs, whatever until you're blue in the face or in this case, your fingers fall off from typing. Most people will twist your words, quote sources such as blogs, and other non medical sources, and even talk about their own experiences all the while stating that their experience works for everyone, but yours doesn't. These are also the same people that change their whole lifestyle because of one documentary about being a vegetarian, but never see one of them picking up a joint because of a documentary about smoking weed. Thanks for the info though. Some people will actually use your advice, but most will not. Have a good day.
But the title specifically tells me I'm not a special snowflake and my body works exactly like everyone else's. So obviously my situation applies perfectly to everyone else on the planet...0 -
All of my weight loss has been on Keto. 2 years, 80+ pounds, and a loss of 10% bodyfat from ~28% to now ~18%.
Also all of my muscle gains have been on Keto. Bench from 80lbs to 200lbs. Deadlift from 120lbs to 320lbs. Squat from 100lbs to 220lbs.
My bloodwork is textbook besides a Vitamin D deficiency that I supplement for (hooray for living in New England and working a desk job).
The fact that there is an entire years' old FORUM on Bodybuilding.com with hundreds of people following it successfully and dozens of fitness professionals and amateurs (bodybuilders, power lifters, fitness models, bikini, etc) is proof-positive to its success.
Obvious troll thread is obvious. Keto, like any other diet followed correctly - Paleo, Atkins, Zone, WW, high-carb, high-fat, high-protein, a 40/30/30 split, etc - works fantastically.
Troll somewhere else.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
And yet your profile states it took you 11 months to lose the weight (which would be somewhat more reasonable, given your starting weight). So which is it?
Between April and October, I experimented with what you likely do and had hopelessly abysmal results, all the while being fairly hungry. My macros were around 35/30/35 and if I ate less than 2,500 calories, I wanted to eat the leg off of my chair. I lost about 30 lbs. between Easter and Labor Day.0 -
Eat "healthy" (whatever that means for you), exercise, die anyway.
In the meantime, do what works for you that allows you to live your best possible life. If that's eating junk food, fine. If it's eating a balanced diet, fine. If it's "keto" or anything else, fine.0 -
All of my weight loss has been on Keto. 2 years, 80+ pounds, and a loss of 10% bodyfat from ~28% to now ~18%.
Also all of my muscle gains have been on Keto. Bench from 80lbs to 200lbs. Deadlift from 120lbs to 320lbs. Squat from 100lbs to 220lbs.
My bloodwork is textbook besides a Vitamin D deficiency that I supplement for (hooray for living in New England and working a desk job).
The fact that there is an entire years' old FORUM on Bodybuilding.com with hundreds of people following it successfully and dozens of fitness professionals and amateurs (bodybuilders, power lifters, fitness models, bikini, etc) is proof-positive to its success.
Obvious troll thread is obvious. Keto, like any other diet followed correctly - Paleo, Atkins, Zone, WW, high-carb, high-fat, high-protein, a 40/30/30 split, etc - works fantastically.
Troll somewhere else.
Great work! Were your muscle gains while in deficit or surplus? And I would ask you the same thing. How were the muscle gains verified? Dexa Scan? Immersion? You listed strength gains but those could be almost exclusively the result of neuromuscular adaptation and not hypertrophy.
Just for the record, I am not anti-keto. I am anti extremes. FYI. If it worked great for you and is sustainable for you, I would have no reason to criticize you for it. I tried it and found it too restrictive. And I did't get any better results than a balanced approach. I also didn't have that much to lose. 15 to 20 lbs at the begining and lost 5 before I started logging here.0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
And yet your profile states it took you 11 months to lose the weight (which would be somewhat more reasonable, given your starting weight). So which is it?
Between April and October, I experimented with what you likely do and had hopelessly abysmal results, all the while being fairly hungry. My macros were around 35/30/35 and if I ate less than 2,500 calories, I wanted to eat the leg off of my chair. I lost about 30 lbs. between Easter and Labor Day.
Given that you know nothing about my diet or intake, you're not exactly qualified to make assumptions about what I likely do (which in fact, is not what you are assuming).
My problem is that you are stating that you lost 119lbs in 4.5 months. And then, when you reply to my question, it's restated that you only lost 30lbs in 4.5 months. So, I'm still confused.0 -
Eat "healthy" (whatever that means for you), exercise, die anyway.
In the meantime, do what works for you that allows you to live your best possible life. If that's eating junk food, fine. If it's eating a balanced diet, fine. If it's "keto" or anything else, fine.
Agree.
Whatever people do is proportional of whatever they want to achieve and how.
If some people are obsessed, they could do extreme things, like trying some of those wird, extreme, unhealty and usually 'temporary solution' diets out there.
If some people is ill and need to do things for health reasons, they MUST try and stick with whatever is working, if it stops working (plateu) try something else
If you go to the doctor,and your numbers are good, but you still need to loose some weight just because you want and not for other reasons (medical or whatever other tells you) eat burgers every now and then and 200g of carbs if you want if you are still loosing weight (don't think this can be done without exercise imo of course)
If some people are really uncommitted, uninterested, or want magic loss, it really doesn't matter what they do.
We are all different this is clear to most, nobody holds the truth, we all have different reasons, different bodies, different metabolisms, we take different approaches, and different degrees of limit ourselves to some things or the others.
It's working for you, or you, or you, and it's different that whatever he, or she, or me are doing? Stick to it. don't change just because you think others do better or other say it's better.
This with all due respect to everyone.
I would be interested in what Spartan is doing, but I wouldn't try it, it seems it works great, never read or knew anything about what he shared with us is interesting, but I like carbs, and I was loosing weight doing what I did until I hit a plateu and had to accept after several weeks there's something I have to do differently now, without doing utmost and ultimate sacrifices, maybe if I try and try and cannot loose, will try extreme stuff far away in the future.
Not now, I like bread, and cereal, not leaving those. Just thinking about going below 150g carbs a day terrifies me. I assume ti will improve my loss greatly, but I have no rush as long as I keep loosing. 0 -
We should never rely on any one source or simply believe that we know whats best imo. I have to remind myself of this quote so I don't end up a totally blind nutrition nurd. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."The ketogenic diet is the oldest diet known to man. Every single one of us are here today because of beta-hydroxybutyrate. It has allowed us to evolve through the harshest famines in human history by endogenously providing 80% of the brain's energy and sparing protein and glucose unlike any compound ever known to mankind.
Many things can be said about it, but you don't inspire confidence by including it in the category of "fads" or describing it using a hopelessly hackneyed MFP phrase. It's the entire underpinning of evolutionary biology.
Parenthetically, a person will not reach meaningful serum BHB levels without reducing carbohydrates to less than 50 grams a day and protein to between 0.6 and 1.0 grams per pound of lean mass.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. You might find that it's much better than spending your life as blood sugar's b*tch.
Are you saying that the only 2 choices are to simulate starvation in order to trigger BHB or be your blood sugar's *****? I am interpreting this correctly? Do not many people manage to maintian healthy blood sugar ranges without doing this?
Yes, mma, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, it's a matter of perspective, and I don't particularly enjoy being evangelical. However, some things on these forums are so stunningly stupid that I feel morally obligated to respond.
The people of whom you speak need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on. I don't. I'm bonk proof. Consequently, I can exercise all day long in the absence of food because I'm completely keto-adapted with BHB levels regularly above 2.0 mg/dl. Any day I want, therefore, I can undertake a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) with ease.
It's a superior diet if properly constructed. I've lost 119 lbs. and 30.4% body fat, mostly over a period of 4.5 months. I didn't have to get especially low in weight to do it, either. I'm 6'0, 189.4 and 11.3% body fat as of today.
I'd respectfully suggest that there is a whole lot of middle ground between "people need to eat shortly after glycogen stores are empty in order to keep the lights on" and a keto-adapted diet as you describe it. And most people funtion fine in this middle ground instead of at either of those 2 extremes.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
Again, it's a matter of perspective and entirely dependent on how a person defines "fine." Anything less than optimal is inferior, in my view.
I think Lyle McDonald provides valuable information to people, including his work "The Ketogenic Diet," but I don't rely on a guy with a bachelor's degree and a blog for my world view or philosophy about life.
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
And yet your profile states it took you 11 months to lose the weight (which would be somewhat more reasonable, given your starting weight). So which is it?
Between April and October, I experimented with what you likely do and had hopelessly abysmal results, all the while being fairly hungry. My macros were around 35/30/35 and if I ate less than 2,500 calories, I wanted to eat the leg off of my chair. I lost about 30 lbs. between Easter and Labor Day.
Given that you know nothing about my diet or intake, you're not exactly qualified to make assumptions about what I likely do (which in fact, is not what you are assuming).
My problem is that you are stating that you lost 119lbs in 4.5 months. And then, when you reply to my question, it's restated that you only lost 30lbs in 4.5 months. So, I'm still confused.
Good God: 4.5 months is January, February, March, November and December. From April to October, I took a traditional approach. I suspect you don't see the irony of the first paragraph of your post beginning with the word "Given." If you did, we wouldn't be having this pointless conversation.0 -
I agree completely. When, and if, I see a person lose more than the equivalent of 119 lbs. and 30% body fat in less than 4.5 months, I'll be all over it, amending my views, if necessary. I certainly won't jealously cling to my inferior approach.
And yet your profile states it took you 11 months to lose the weight (which would be somewhat more reasonable, given your starting weight). So which is it?
Between April and October, I experimented with what you likely do and had hopelessly abysmal results, all the while being fairly hungry. My macros were around 35/30/35 and if I ate less than 2,500 calories, I wanted to eat the leg off of my chair. I lost about 30 lbs. between Easter and Labor Day.
Given that you know nothing about my diet or intake, you're not exactly qualified to make assumptions about what I likely do (which in fact, is not what you are assuming).
My problem is that you are stating that you lost 119lbs in 4.5 months. And then, when you reply to my question, it's restated that you only lost 30lbs in 4.5 months. So, I'm still confused.
Good God: 4.5 months is January, February, March, November and December. From April to October, I took a traditional approach. I suspect you don't see the irony of the first paragraph of your sentence beginning with the word "Given."
Nope, I don't see the irony.....I'm not the one who put my diet and intake on display and suggested that it was the perfect alternative to traditional calorie counting. When you do that, it opens you up for scrutiny.
Okay, so for clarification.....you've lost 119lbs total. You lost 89lbs in 5 months, which was split up to include January, February, March, November and December. In each of those months, you lost approximately 17.8lbs in each of those months. And you lost that weight due to a keto diet.
Then, in April, May, June, July, August, September, and October, you did traditional calorie counting and only lost 4.3lbs a month for a total of 30lbs. Do I have it right?
So....in your first months you lost a lot of weight quickly. That's normal. It was probably partly water weight. Many people see large losses initially. Then, you went to calorie counting and your weight loss slowed down to a 1lb per week rate (which is what we like to call moderate, sustainable weight loss). But that wasn't working for you, so you went to a keto diet. And now, you're back to losing 17.8lbs a month. Is this all correct?
Can I ask what your calorie goal was when you were doing calorie counting? How much exercise do you do and what kind? Has your exercise changed at all during the course of your dieting/weight loss?
If you want us to believe that eating keto is the cause of all your weight loss (which you also claim was purely fat loss), then I want to make sure that I've asked the right questions to eliminate any other potential reasons you could have been losing weight at such a rapid pace.
*Edit - fixed it!0 -
I feel like I'd love this diet to be the answer...and yet..:o/ I don't know about you guys but I find it hard to drop myself down to 40-30-30 on 1300 cals let alone lower than that on carbs.0
-
I feel like I'd love this diet to be the answer...and yet..:o/ I don't know about you guys but I find it hard to drop myself down to 40-30-30 on 1300 cals let alone lower than that on carbs.
If you're only trying to lose 10lbs, you shouldn't be eating so few calories.0 -
What is is about keto that makes people so mad on this site? Go ahead, ignore every positive study, the MANY people who have great success on it. In fact, your opinion means ZERO just because you do not like it. You think it's extreme? Why would someone who has had success on it care that YOU FEEL it's extreme?
I would love for MFP to outright ban people coming into a keto paleo whatever thread and doing nothing but saying it's stupid, doesn't work blah blah. You aren't being helpful or constructive, you are just trying to force your opinion down everyone's throat.
I personally take breaks, I lose 30lb in 45 days or so, then I stop. Reinforce with carb feeding after workouts to try to peak my muscle growth, gaining 15-20 in the process. Then I go back to keto and drop 20-30lb. Bodybuilders have been doing it for a long time and it works for them.
Does that hurt you guys in some special way we don't understand? Take a look at yourself, not someone else's chosen diet.0 -
@Lora I won't bother to quote it all back.
First of all, I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. As I stated, I never once was trying to be evangelical, and I'm genuinely happy you've achieved success. Along those lines, I also couldn't care less what approach people take, but when I see stunningly stupid posts, anchored in the nutritional Stone Age, I sometimes feel compelled to chime in.
Second, humor me with the "water weight." Of course I depleted my glycogen stores and lost lots of water during the first month of keto-adaption. In fact, that was the entire purpose, so as to spur on an exercise program. Initially, all I could do was some "Jacks"-- jumping jacks without the jumping. Within a short period of time, I was walking up to an hour. I also started doing some modest weight training. This lasted until about Easter. From mid-December 2011 until around Easter, I lost 72 lbs., or about 23% of my body weight. I was able to achieve an extremely aggressive calorie deficit by mostly endogenously fueling my brain with BHB and engaging in many protein sparing modified fasts (PSMF). I did it without being hungry a single day. Of course, I supplemented with vitamins and specific minerals, including magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
I went the conventional route and continued to conduct a bunch of self-experimentation. During that time, I was very average. I ate approximately 2,400 calories a day while burning rougly 500 a day doing various exercises, including powerlifting, 400 meter sprints, walking, intervals etc., about 5 days a week. I lost rougly 30 lbs, or about 13% of my body weight during that 8 month period -- about the standard 1 lb. a week.
.
In late October, I took a month to get keto-adapted again and dropped 19 lbs. since (10%). I can once again go all day exercising in the absence of food -- powerlifting (up to almost 500 lbs. on the deadlift), 400 meter sprints (48.6 seconds two weeks ago), walking all day, intervals all day etc. My brain is bonk proof. My brain and body are fueled by BHB, free fatty acids, and a small amount of gluconeogenesis. It's undeniably superior. In fact, my strength gains on every major lift are through the roof in the last two months; recovery time is completely unnecessary. The difference between the two approaches is like comparing a new Ferrari to a 1978 Pinto.
Parenthetically, there are approximately 8 weeks which were periods of keto-adaption. It takes a good month of restricting carbs and limiting protein to get BHB levels north of 1.0.0 -
I feel like I'd love this diet to be the answer...and yet..:o/ I don't know about you guys but I find it hard to drop myself down to 40-30-30 on 1300 cals let alone lower than that on carbs.
Right. You can't do it while eating lots of carbs because you're a slave to hypoglycemia. You need food to make your brain work. I'm 6'0, 189, and I could go many days a week eating what the mainstream muppets would tell you is dangerous. It's because my calorie hog, the brain, is mainly fed endogenously.0 -
Under 100g of carb is NOT a Keto diet. It is quite possible to eat under 100g daily and get in plenty of fruits, veggies, and whole grains. So I call shenanigans on who ever wrote the opinion you are quoting.
With Type 2 diabetes and obesity at an all time high and rising, I think high-carb diets are way more dangerous than low carb ones.
That is just my opinion, based on years of working with my mother's dieticians and doctors while she was dying from Diabetes and organ failure.
As a type two diabetic myself I'm gonna say "yup."0
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
- 426 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