Please explain low carbs and it's magical proprieties

I can only talk on this subject from my own personal experience, as I do not have a scientific background for anything other than computers.

That said, I have been on an essentially ketogenic diet for about the last 7 months. I am down just shy of 65 pounds (20 since coming to MFP) and I have not felt this fantastic since high school. My energy levels are through the roof, and my generalized outlook has never been better.

I like the diet because my intake of protein keeps me full for longer periods, and It is fairly simple to stay consistent on because the foods taste good and are very satisfying. It can get to be expensive though, especially if you are a stickler on very lean cuts of meat like I am, but I almost never feel hungry, and the weight continues to come off.

You can also get bread and pasta which is low or zero carb if you just have to get your fix on starch. Julian bakery offers it, but it is extremely expensive and I honestly do not miss it all that much anyway. Women seem to have a bigger problem staying consistent on it as they tend to have bigger cravings for sugar, but there again, they have alternatives out there for those who absolutely must have some form of sweets.

I have taken the time to read numerous sources on the diet since I am a practitioner of it, and the opinions expressed are about as diverse as you will find among zealots discussing politics.

All I know is that it is working for me, but what others choose to do with their dietary intake is their own business. There is no "one size fits all" solution in this journey.

The poster was asking a question about HOW the diet worked.

I had assumed OP was asking about how the diet worked for healthy individuals without a specific medical condition.



Oh, MFP...

...a nice variation on "SURPRISE MEDICAL CONDITION!"

Excuse me?

Are medical conditions not to be taken into consideration upon maintaining one's health? Then why diet at all! Diabetes, donuts, heart disease and happy meals, clogged arteries and cake, here I come! I WANT it ALL so I'm going to eat it all. Screw dieting. What's the point, I'll try them all at once.

If anyone wants to pretend to know anything about keto, they could easily find even the simplest online resources, quotes, medical studies, so on about epilepsy and dieting. To not know the two have can be intertwined is to show all the more that one has no credit to speak on it.

I don't think your body works in quite the same way as a normal body which is what the other poster was getting at. It's not meant to be insulting :huh:

The only thing I'm insulted by is how people fail to be open minded, but I'm a always an optimist and expect this to go away with age. Trust me I'm aware my body works differently and would not exchange it. Any disrespectful comments I have received ever (few and far between)...I simply disregard as ignorant.

Would you care to suggest to me why my epilogist and primary care physician have me on a Ketogenic diet.......I've been seizure free since on Keto. The last time I had one, I had 4 in one day, this is BEFORE my keto diet. AND I have been able to decrease my medication.

Very low carb has been a standard part of the potential treatment regime for those types conditions for donkey's years.

Exactly my point. She spoke saying that she saw the diet as not advisable....apparently, for some, it can be.

So if I were to infer what you're saying.....

If a Type 1 diabetic is prescribed insulin to address their medical condition, then all people should inject insulin

or

if a person needs chemotherapy because they have cancer, then all people should receive chemotherapy



Just because something was prescribed to you, does not mean it's a solution for everyone.

Would you care to suggest to me why my epilogist and primary care physician have me on a Ketogenic diet....with ALL test results coming back normal after beginning such? I'd love to send you the 'data'. If you're going to talk careers and educations, please do so with complete respect and understand that although these are JUST links,for some people on this site they have provided results and from from physicians and doctors(I have went to 5 neurologists!....5!!!! and coming from 3600 mg of medications, not including vitamins - my seizures have only started 6 years ago too). I've been seizure free since on Keto. The last time I had one, I had 4 in one day, this is BEFORE my keto diet. AND I have been able to decrease my medication.

In the meantime, I have lost weight, over 11 pounds, no longer crave carbs or sugars, and my energy level has went through the roof (let me remind you that most seizure medications have a side effect of making one tired, groggy and absentminded).

So please, all I'm asking, is take this into consideration. I DO NOT judge another's diet approach - do MORE research yourself before you judge another's. The poster was asking a question about HOW the diet worked.

Yes! I'm absolutely for you making dietary decisions that are approved by your physicians FOR YOU. Ketogenic diets do play a strong role in the management of epilepsy and if you're seeing positive results from making that switch, then I'm extremely glad for that. I hope you don't see my posts as an attack towards a method that has worked for you so far. I'm glad it has, truly :flowerforyou: You bring up a great point that all the research we're discussing is based on statistics and not the individual. However, the research also shows us trends about what a randomized sample of people experiences - and in the case of keto and weight loss, they tend not to experience much of a difference after one year.
At the end of the day, people will make their own nutritional choices and eventually find what works best for them -- my only hope is that in the meantime that they don't misinterpret the research or fall for pseudoscience weight loss methods without first thinking critically about the data or talking to a physician.

Thank you. And unfortunately, since we are talking personal experience and each individual, I cannot speak on myself and results after a year for as I have not been on the diet for a year, and as well, weight loss is not my main goal.

And I too agree, talking to a physician is of up most importance.

Because then, well, people would be educated, and nobody could tell them their diet was wrong for them, haha.

There's no special magic that happens. For me I don't consider myself on a low carb diet, but technically I am. It's more about changing the ratio of protein and fat intake. I like it because overall I feel like I get to eat a lot more (carbs are pretty calorie dense) and I feel satiated longer.

The poster was asking a question about HOW the diet worked.

I had assumed OP was asking about how the diet worked for healthy individuals without a specific medical condition.



Oh, MFP...

...a nice variation on "SURPRISE MEDICAL CONDITION!"

:laugh:

Some folks are going to find a way to pick a fight, no matter what.

:drinker:

I started college full time at 15 and am a month from 20, so yes. I'm taking an extra year for a genetics degree as well. I have extensive organic/biochemistry lab experience and worked in a phys research lab (heavily biochem/biotech based) for two years before joining my current lab. My age isn't that relevant, but thanks for noticing :glasses:

How on earth did you start college full time at 15? (I'm not suggesting that your age supports or detracts from your positions, I'm just very surprised.)

I started college full time at 15 and am a month from 20, so yes. I'm taking an extra year for a genetics degree as well. I have extensive organic/biochemistry lab experience and worked in a phys research lab (heavily biochem/biotech based) for two years before joining my current lab. My age isn't that relevant, but thanks for noticing :glasses:

How on earth did you start college full time at 15? (I'm not suggesting that your age supports or detracts from your positions, I'm just very surprised.)

I got lucky -- MN is one of very few states that allows a small number of high school students to go to college full time beginning their junior year. I'm a fairly ambitious person and wanted the challenge (and the two years of free tuition, fees and textbooks ^.^).

The poster was asking a question about HOW the diet worked.

I had assumed OP was asking about how the diet worked for healthy individuals without a specific medical condition.



Oh, MFP...

...a nice variation on "SURPRISE MEDICAL CONDITION!"

:laugh:

Some folks are going to find a way to pick a fight, no matter what.

:drinker:

Considering you will not stop, I see so.

I had posted a link quoting another topic, giving credit to the OP, on how it works beforehand.

I was not aware that this site only had one purpose.

Quote myfitnesspal on facebook

"MyFitnessPal is a free and easy nutrition and fitness system that helps anyone achieve good health. Our powerful tools get you fit...and keep you there."

Note "Good health"....and "anyone"

"Good health" is what lead me to respond to her, the two of us have come to a conclusion. I hope we can do the same :-)

My sister lost a lot of weight on the Atkins diet and has kept it off for 3 years now and pretty much eats anything she want now just not in large amounts. The fats does curb your apatite and a study was done and they found that if you eat til your satisfied and not stuffed you will eat less calories on Atkins, my understanding of eating all the pork chops or bacon you wanted and still lose was just that. I ended up eating to many calories instead of just enough to satisfy my hunger. then I got tired of it and failed. This time I have a better understanding of what not to do.......................I hope, so far so good. 37 lb in 7 weeks

In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...).

I don't want to argue with you but I would certainly appreciate seeing some of the non-glossy-magazine literature on the topic.

Of course! It's been awhile since I've read through them thoroughly, but I'll try and post the best ones. Note that many of these are studies using reliable animal models instead of people, because it's generally not practical or ethical to make already healthy, lean humans restrict caloric intake for long periods of time (Okinawa and Biosphere 2 are the best human examples to look up if you'd like). Also note that caloric restriction is NOT the same as starvation or undernutrition - all nutritional needs are met, but the total caloric intake is decreased by 30-40% from ad libitum conditions. I've also read quite a bit about rapamycin and resveratrol as potential lifespan-extenders. This is a really, really interesting topic -- if anyone wants more articles or discussion, let me know

Guarente & Sinclair (2006). Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity Genes.
Okay, this one is a little bit glossy (Scientific American), but it's written by the Harvard researchers behind a lot of the sir2 pathway studies and is a really good, easy but in-depth read: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/aging/rsi/rsi_papers/2008/sinclair3.pdf
A great excerpt that pretty much sums up everything: http://snapplr.com/x7da (Also, the end of that paragraph says that an apparent tradeoff is fertility; that's true in a lot of studies, but at the same time, recombination studies in Drosophila show that increased lifespan + reduced fertility are NOT a result of antagonistic pleiotropy and are separable)

Results from Sohal (1996): "(i) Overexpression of antioxidative enzymes retards the age-related accrual of oxidative damage and extends the maximum life-span of transgenic Drosophila melanogaster. (ii) Variations in longevity among different species inversely correlate with the rates of mitochondrial generation of the superoxide anion radical (O2) and hydrogen peroxide. (iii) Restriction of caloric intake lowers steady-state levels of oxidative stress and damage, retards age-associated changes, and extends the maximum life-span in mammals."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8658196

Results from Kwan et al 2008:"Using bacterial food deprivation as a means of DR in C. elegans, we show that transient DR confers long-term benefits including stress resistance and increased longevity. Consistent with studies in the fruit fly and in mice, we demonstrate that DR also enhances survival when initiated late in life."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457595

Mattison et al 2012: (For the skeptics who don't like Drosophila or C elegans studies...this was a Rhesus monkey study published in Nature last year). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22932268
Abstract: "Calorie restriction (CR), a reduction of 10–40% in intake of a nutritious diet, is often reported as the most robust non-genetic mechanism to extend lifespan and healthspan. CR is frequently used as a tool to understand mechanisms behind ageing and age-associated diseases. In addition to and independently of increasing lifespan, CR has been reported to delay or prevent the occurrence of many chronic diseases in a variety of animals. Beneficial effects of CR on outcomes such as immune function, motor coordination and resistance to sarcopenia in rhesus monkeys have recently been reported. We report here that a CR regimen implemented in young and older age rhesus monkeys at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has not improved survival outcomes. Our findings contrast with an ongoing study at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), which reported improved survival associated with 30% CR initiated in adult rhesus monkeys (7–14 years) and a preliminary report with a small number of CR monkeys. Over the years, both NIA and WNPRC have extensively documented beneficial health effects of CR in these two apparently parallel studies. The implications of the WNPRC findings were important as they extended CR findings beyond the laboratory rodent and to a long-lived primate. Our study suggests a separation between health effects, morbidity and mortality, and similar to what has been shown in rodents, study design, husbandry and diet composition may strongly affect the life-prolonging effect of CR in a long-lived nonhuman primate."

Excellent background.
I am not sure if I have crossed swords with you before- maybe on that ridiculous glycogen hydration thread.
You should take a look a Hagan's pilot study as he reports it in "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day". Its the kindle version, but the first ten pages are free.
Basically, he found great benefits to the fasting state produced by skipping breakfast, even though people had no eating restriction for the ten hour period following that started at noon.
People's perception of hunger changed, they felt less stress, slept better. And they lost weight.
Even more intriguing, a weight-lifter found his was GAINING strength, with an improved recovery time.
As you know, in the fasting, or stress reaction, state, you not only get cortisol and epinephrine, but growth hormone and glucogon as well.
I think the daily growth hormone burst explains a lot of the benefits.
As well as simple learned behavior.
For anyone pursuing a higher degree in those fields, I think it would make the basis of a great study- a study that would actually MEAN something in the grand scheme of things.

Hi Steve, I usually stay away from the "science" threads on MFP, but I guess I got pulled into this one. That Hagan study sounds interesting, but I wonder whether or not the benefits were specific to skipping breakfast (i.e. does the time of fasting matter?). There are many many many fascinating studies about intermittent fasting & caloric restriction out there. In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...). The resulting stress response via SOD/sir2/IGF pathways is profound, and worth reading about if you have a biochem background and are interested in this sort of topic!

(edit:typo)

According to Hagan, it really has to be breakfast, for several reasons.

-the fat-burning process is not interrupted, assuming that it begins about 8 hours after the last meal at evening. Eating in the morning would shift the dominant process back to burning carbs, and maybe making fat, hagan didn;t want that.

-there is the physiological factor of compliance...you get up, shower up, and go to work, and don;t eat until noon. If it is tough, fantasize about what you WILL eat once the noon bell sounds.

-the purpose of the approach is to build a routine that people can use for the rest of their lives. Hagan found in his small number of people that even though the weight loss was slow, people kept on skipping breakfast because they liked how they felt otherwise. And, of course, weight loss should be slow... that is the best kind.

-Hagan found that even though there were no limits on the "eat" period, people reported that they could not eat as much as before, even though the period of enforced fasting was during the morning. Their report of hunger pangs and urges were similar to those who fast completely- i.e. the hunger pangs go away after a few days. So there is real change in the stomach due to this daily fast.

These are hardly surprising results, given that eating a hearty breakfast is almost totally an invention of modern western civilization.

Throughout recorded history, health and longevity is associated with those who eat lightly or fast.

Ascetics in all civilizations, while maybe not stating it directly, feel that eating is a corruption.

One group in Egypt only ate at night and not during the day. They did not want God to see them eat!

So check out Hagan, and if you are someone out to make your mark, clinical research along these lines could prove to be very fruitful.

be forewarned that the breakfast food companies, and all the diet food and exercise folks will be lined up against you, as they probably are for hagan!!!

-

Interesting. I'll look into his pilot study when I get the chance (I'm assuming it's not published anywhere but in his book?). I don't know how convinced I'll be, but any research that has the potential to affect big businesses is worth looking into more critically. It's a shame how frequently good solid science is being pushed aside for that reason (the Seralini affair/Monsanto comes to mind).
I'm curious, is there a reason why you're so interested in Hagan and this topic in particular? Have you tried following his recommendations?

Interesting. I'll look into his pilot study when I get the chance (I'm assuming it's not published anywhere but in his book?). I don't know how convinced I'll be, but any research that has the potential to affect big businesses is worth looking into more critically. It's a shame how frequently good solid science is being pushed aside for that reason (the Seralini affair/Monsanto comes to mind).
I'm curious, is there a reason why you're so interested in Hagan and this topic in particular? Have you tried following his recommendations?

Seralini has published, but the paper has been disputed and is facing retraction. News release came out recently:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/

There's a thread blog on MFP relating to this and the sloppy research that went into this paper that got it pulled.

Seralini has published, but the paper has been disputed and is facing retraction. News release came out recently:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/

There's a thread blog on MFP relating to this and the sloppy research that went into this paper that got it pulled.

Oh I know, I've been following the whole process closely. I work with GMOs on a regular basis and the outcome of the affair could mean a lot for the entire field -- in a way, I have some incentive to support the article being retracted, but I have mixed feelings about whether that would be the right thing to do.
I've read Seralini's original research a few times and agree that some aspects are not the best, but I also think that much, much sloppier research has been published and not retracted. Usually when that happens, the study's flaws are noted but it's still allowed to act as a starting point for future, improved studies. Seralini's study definitely has its merits and would have at least served as an introduction to the possibility that GMOs are not safe for consumption. The fact that it's being retracted for its relatively minor flaws makes me think that there are probably some serious business moves happening that are more about money than science, and that's really disappointing.

I'm sad about the case too, don't want to see GMO continuing to pick up the pace. But, Seralini really screwed it up. Had rats feeding on tested substrates ad libidum, not well tracked, and test subjects euthanized to comply with ethics regulations, which screwed up the mortality data. I'm disappointed about this, a lot of time was spent, and a poorly designed pilot fell apart.

(I am nominating Sarahnade42x for "MFP's most reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken member" in the 19 and under category. My hope for humanity's future has been slightly restored tonight.

Anyhow, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.)