KETONE DIET- what are youir thoughts on it????

Guys just ignore taso and acg. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to discuss anything unless a peer reviewed study is attached to it. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

Now that's rich! Talking like you think there are a bunch of people that are going to ignore anyone on your say so. :laugh:


So let's see. A couple of days ago you are lumping people together as cliques and calling them lackys because they didn't agree with you. Now you want a couple of people to be ignored because they don't agree with you (Acg67, you are the winner! You made both groups) What is the common denominator here? (besides Acg67 lol)

honestly the problem is this - we were having a really good and interesting conversation about keto vs paleo vs normal carb diets and taso, acg and you came in and blew it all to **** with your TDEE, cal in/out, BS that you spout in every thread. We get it. That's what you believe. We hear you. Now let us talk about other things without having to insert yourselves into every conversation.

Exactly.

No, not exactly. The OP asked a question about Keto diets because she came across some info. That doesn't tell me she has a metabolic disorder. That says she's looking for something else for whatever reason.

The thread got derailed by the number of people claiming they have some sort of disorder pushing keto diets and the holy grail of eating.

For the normal person who doesn't have a medical condition and doesn't have a competition in a few weeks where they need to be 6% BF, keto diets aren't necessary nor are they a good idea.

Guys just ignore taso and acg. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to discuss anything unless a peer reviewed study is attached to it. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

Now that's rich! Talking like you think there are a bunch of people that are going to ignore anyone on your say so. :laugh:


So let's see. A couple of days ago you are lumping people together as cliques and calling them lackys because they didn't agree with you. Now you want a couple of people to be ignored because they don't agree with you (Acg67, you are the winner! You made both groups) What is the common denominator here? (besides Acg67 lol)

honestly the problem is this - we were having a really good and interesting conversation about keto vs paleo vs normal carb diets and taso, acg and you came in and blew it all to **** with your TDEE, cal in/out, BS that you spout in every thread. We get it. That's what you believe. We hear you. Now let us talk about other things without having to insert yourselves into every conversation.

You know, it is possible to talk about keto and paleo in the context of the real physical world we live in. I have friends who do paleo. None of them are daft enough to think they defy the laws of thermodynamics. They just happen to enjoy eating in that manner. A little common sense and critical thinking go a long way. It's when people become crazed zealots and start to tout things like their special snowflake way of eating is so special that it trumps thermodynamics, then yes, I insert myself into the thread.

Guys just ignore taso and acg. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to discuss anything unless a peer reviewed study is attached to it. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

Now that's rich! Talking like you think there are a bunch of people that are going to ignore anyone on your say so. :laugh:


So let's see. A couple of days ago you are lumping people together as cliques and calling them lackys because they didn't agree with you. Now you want a couple of people to be ignored because they don't agree with you (Acg67, you are the winner! You made both groups) What is the common denominator here? (besides Acg67 lol)

honestly the problem is this - we were having a really good and interesting conversation about keto vs paleo vs normal carb diets and taso, acg and you came in and blew it all to **** with your TDEE, cal in/out, BS that you spout in every thread. We get it. That's what you believe. We hear you. Now let us talk about other things without having to insert yourselves into every conversation.

You know, it is possible to talk about keto and paleo in the context of the real physical world we live in. I have friends who do paleo. None of them are daft enough to think they defy the laws of thermodynamics. They just happen to enjoy eating in that manner. A little common sense and critical thinking go a long way. It's when people become crazed zealots and start to tout things like their special snowflake way of eating is so special that it trumps thermodynamics, then yes, I insert myself into the thread.

someone with a metabolic disorder IS a special snowflake compared to you and me.

Guys just ignore taso and acg. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to discuss anything unless a peer reviewed study is attached to it. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

Now that's rich! Talking like you think there are a bunch of people that are going to ignore anyone on your say so. :laugh:


So let's see. A couple of days ago you are lumping people together as cliques and calling them lackys because they didn't agree with you. Now you want a couple of people to be ignored because they don't agree with you (Acg67, you are the winner! You made both groups) What is the common denominator here? (besides Acg67 lol)

honestly the problem is this - we were having a really good and interesting conversation about keto vs paleo vs normal carb diets and taso, acg and you came in and blew it all to **** with your TDEE, cal in/out, BS that you spout in every thread. We get it. That's what you believe. We hear you. Now let us talk about other things without having to insert yourselves into every conversation.

Pot meet kettle.

You jump in and insert yourself many times and spout. Read the last 4 sentences of your post and apply it to yourself.

And you keep refering to we. You got a frog in your pocket? This is a public forum and you don't get to decide who plays and who doesn't. Just like you can't be excluded from posting in whatever thread you want no matter how off a wall someone may think your ideas are.

Guys just ignore taso and acg. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to discuss anything unless a peer reviewed study is attached to it. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

Now that's rich! Talking like you think there are a bunch of people that are going to ignore anyone on your say so. :laugh:


So let's see. A couple of days ago you are lumping people together as cliques and calling them lackys because they didn't agree with you. Now you want a couple of people to be ignored because they don't agree with you (Acg67, you are the winner! You made both groups) What is the common denominator here? (besides Acg67 lol)

honestly the problem is this - we were having a really good and interesting conversation about keto vs paleo vs normal carb diets and taso, acg and you came in and blew it all to **** with your TDEE, cal in/out, BS that you spout in every thread. We get it. That's what you believe. We hear you. Now let us talk about other things without having to insert yourselves into every conversation.

You know, it is possible to talk about keto and paleo in the context of the real physical world we live in. I have friends who do paleo. None of them are daft enough to think they defy the laws of thermodynamics. They just happen to enjoy eating in that manner. A little common sense and critical thinking go a long way. It's when people become crazed zealots and start to tout things like their special snowflake way of eating is so special that it trumps thermodynamics, then yes, I insert myself into the thread.

someone with a metabolic disorder IS a special snowflake compared to you and me.

But they still don't defy CICO. See the crux of the issue? Probably not i suppose; otherwise we'd be pals.

Guys just ignore taso and acg. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to discuss anything unless a peer reviewed study is attached to it. Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away.

Spartan - thanks so much for the info, and yes it I'm totally going to dive into the rabbit hole. Sounds fascinating.

Better to make stuff up and post livestrong and mercola links, right?

then to blindly follow "science"? both are flawed.

again... leeches...

well, If I blindly follow Taso and ACG and end up having a bf% or strength gains that even mildly resembles either of them, I'd be stoked.

They aren't blindly following anything. Look at ACG's abs. You think he got like that by not considering different approaches?

Have you seen Taso's back? Do you think he got that ripped without considering any and all information??

If you have a specific medical condition to consider, make the conversation about people with that medical condition. Do not apply your personal medical needs to everyone. It doesn't make any sense. We dont' all have to follow a diabetic diet, nor do we all have to follow a GF diet. But a general truth for everyone is that in order for your body to lose excess fat, you need to burn more calories than you consume and continue in this pattern for a period of time.

also, the best way to discredit yourself is to smack talk people who have helped many of us (myself included) make huge changes in our health by guiding us along and supporting us.

to hard for beginners

Haha - 'science' is bad and quoting it in support of one's argument is now bullying, I see.. I also see a regular thread-hijacker complaining that those annoying 'science' people are hijacking the thread. Amusing.

Ketogenic diets are useful for treating certain neurological disorders - notably seizure disorders, and to a less certain extent, traumatic neuronal injuries. The diet used in these cases is pretty extreme, and I think most recreational adherents are more than likely using a modified version of the clinical approach - low to very low carbohydrate vs. very, very minimal in the clinical version.

The studies that show cumulative adverse effects of sustained high-fat/mod protein/v low carb diets are mostly based on the clinical version, so although there are solid data indicating problems with kidney function, problems with cognitive impairment and problems with circulation, these may not apply to recreational adherents.

I think it's dubious as to whether many recreational adherents really spend much time in ketosis at all. Ketosis is not an optimal functional state of the human body and I doubt that the byproducts of ketoacidosis are great for humans long-term. Short-term intervals are probably fine. Persistent ketosis I think is risky. For people who are using it clinically the risks obviously are greatly outweighed by the benefits. But there are probably quite few real benefits to non-pathalogical users, making risk/benefit analysis suggest it's not a good long-term diet.

But if we permit that the diet is 'mostly harmless' to regular dieters, then we need to ask whether it has any specific benefit. It would appear that the weight-loss people report comes from caloric deficit, no surprises there. And to a lesser degree, to effects on satiety associated with fat consumption. However, I see no really unique benefits to offset what is potentially an extremely restrictive and perhaps moderately riskly diet regimen.

I would recommend against it unless the individual is advised to use the diet as part of a clinical treatment plan. To shed some pounds... not worth it.

BUMP!!!

Wtf?

If it's something you can keep up, go for it. However, if you're thinking about going on it just to lose the weight, then go back to how you normally eat, it's probably not such a good idea. It's pretty restrictive, but nothing wrong with it from a health perspective. My biochemisty professor was on a ketogenic diet, and he researches metabolism for a living.

Haha - 'science' is bad and quoting it in support of one's argument is now bullying, I see.. I also see a regular thread-hijacker complaining that those annoying 'science' people are hijacking the thread. Amusing.

Ketogenic diets are useful for treating certain neurological disorders - notably seizure disorders, and to a less certain extent, traumatic neuronal injuries. The diet used in these cases is pretty extreme, and I think most recreational adherents are more than likely using a modified version of the clinical approach - low to very low carbohydrate vs. very, very minimal in the clinical version.

The studies that show cumulative adverse effects of sustained high-fat/mod protein/v low carb diets are mostly based on the clinical version, so although there are solid data indicating problems with kidney function, problems with cognitive impairment and problems with circulation, these may not apply to recreational adherents.

I think it's dubious as to whether many recreational adherents really spend much time in ketosis at all. Ketosis is not an optimal functional state of the human body and I doubt that the byproducts of ketoacidosis are great for humans long-term. Short-term intervals are probably fine. Persistent ketosis I think is risky. For people who are using it clinically the risks obviously are greatly outweighed by the benefits. But there are probably quite few real benefits to non-pathalogical users, making risk/benefit analysis suggest it's not a good long-term diet.

But if we permit that the diet is 'mostly harmless' to regular dieters, then we need to ask whether it has any specific benefit. It would appear that the weight-loss people report comes from caloric deficit, no surprises there. And to a lesser degree, to effects on satiety associated with fat consumption. However, I see no really unique benefits to offset what is potentially an extremely restrictive and perhaps moderately riskly diet regimen.

I would recommend against it unless the individual is advised to use the diet as part of a clinical treatment plan. To shed some pounds... not worth it.

+1

oh hey...for the record...I say "woof!" as a way of saying "righty-o!"

I love dogs.

When i look at taso's back, it makes me go "woof!" *wags tail* *pants* *drools a little*

Perhaps you could reconsider that? A lot of people would think you were calling them a dog like that - same as when people make oinking or mooing sounds at someone, it's to say that the person making the sounds thinks they're a pig or disgustingly fat. So it's more like a form of abusive comment.

Others would just think of an attention seeking 13 year old making animal noises because they think it makes them special and funny.


But it's up to you. The vast majority will ignore you.

I have no interest in the "vast majority" and what's up with the insults? Geez!

Caw! Caw!

ETA: anyone who has seen young Frankenstein knows that "woof!" Is a good thing!

oh hey...for the record...I say "woof!" as a way of saying "righty-o!"

I love dogs.

When i look at taso's back, it makes me go "woof!" *wags tail* *pants* *drools a little*

Perhaps you could reconsider that? A lot of people would think you were calling them a dog like that - same as when people make oinking or mooing sounds at someone, it's to say that the person making the sounds thinks they're a pig or disgustingly fat. So it's more like a form of abusive comment.

Others would just think of an attention seeking 13 year old making animal noises because they think it makes them special and funny.


But it's up to you. The vast majority will ignore you.

I have no interest in the "vast majority" and what's up with the insults? Geez!

Caw! Caw!

ETA: anyone who has seen young Frankenstein knows that "woof!" Is a good thing!

Frau Blucher!!!!!!!!!