Ketogenic Diet - How many carbs do you eat?

Options
1…456810

Replies

  • leodru
    leodru Posts: 321 Member
    Options
    Ketogenic Diets are crazy. Why not just eat mostly fruits and vegetables with moderate amounts of fat and protein?

    I learned today that fruits have tons of carbs. Avoid them like the plague :)

    Good luck with looking good without them. heh

    There isn't anything at all in a fruit you can't find in a vegetable and by sticking to vegetables you avoid the added carbs. That's especially important to anyone trying to control insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

    I hate when people quote what is healthy for diabetics when others are talking about an average person not a diabetic. These conversation always sway to whatever argument suits the individual point rather than the conversation. I've been seeing a dietitian and she keeps hounding me because my fats are too high and carbs are too low. Since I started following her recommendations (270 carbs a day!) I've been losing weight and i'm not resorting to eating chicken wings and bacon to do it. Low carb leads to bad overall diet (high fat because calories have to come from somewhere) and in the long run when carbs creep back in along side the chicken wings and bacon then you put on weight rapidly. Not for me. If you look at something like iifym.com you will see bodybuilders doing low carb but only allowing around 60 g of fat but that is not what the average person does when low carbing it.
  • leodru
    leodru Posts: 321 Member
    Options
    300 + grams carbs per day
    200-300 sugars

    Started my diet low carbing, netted 20 grams, then netted 50 grams, then switched over to a plant based diet.

    I advocate low carbing as a beginners tool for people who have a lot of weight to lose and want to do it quickly (as I did, starting weight 220-210, CW 127). Lost first 70 lbs on LC. I also advocate using low carb as a tool to get a big chunky of weight off so u can exercise easier. I also advocate LC with the plan being over time reintroducing carbs back into your diet to allow for more variety of foods which in turn will make maintenece easier for a life time.

    I now calorie count and eat about 80-90% plant based about 100 cals a day reserved for a "treat" (popcorn, chocolate, etc.....)

    still losing between .1-.5 lbs per week, 7 lbs to go

    open diary.
    Perfect example of high carb, low fat and moderate protein and working well!
  • Topsking2010
    Topsking2010 Posts: 2,245 Member
    Options
    About 160-200 carbs per day
  • gina_nz_
    gina_nz_ Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I haven't lost muscle, actually I've gained it (I do swim, quite impressed with my quads and biceps actually) and lost weight. I love eating this way, not a fad.

    My macros are: 75% fat 20% protein and 5% carbs.

    Oh and my blood pressure has gone from 130/90 to 115/70. Had all bloods done and are all normal (weren't the best before changing my lifestyle, sorry I can't remember the results) :)
  • NextPage
    NextPage Posts: 609 Member
    Options
    I honestly don't understand all this talk about carbs, which is one of the three macronutrients along with protein and fat, as if they are all "bad" when the real issue is to choose the right carbs and limit foods that are high in processed, refined simple sugars which provide calories, but very little nutrition. Yes, people have health conditions that mean a certain carbs, such as wheat for celiacs, that need to be avoided but carbs include literally hundreds of choices.

    (quote)

    WHY DO WE NEED CARBOHYDRATES?

    Carbohydrates are the body’s main source of fuel.
    Carbohydrates are easily used by the body for energy.
    All of the tissues and cells in our body can use glucose for energy.
    Carbohydrates are needed for the central nervous system, the kidneys, the brain, the muscles (including the heart) to function properly.
    Carbohydrates can be stored in the muscles and liver and later used for energy.
    Carbohydrates are important in intestinal health and waste elimination.

    Fiber refers to certain types of carbohydrates that our body cannot digest. These carbohydrates pass through the intestinal tract intact and help to move waste out of the body. Diets that are low in fiber have been shown to cause problems such as constipation and hemorrhoids and to increase the risk for certain types of cancers such as colon cancer. Diets high in fiber; however, have been shown to decrease risks for heart disease, obesity, and they help lower cholesterol. Foods high in fiber include fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products.

    (unquote)

    Carbs include low calorie, nutrition dense food including vegetables, fruit (berries are cancer prevention superstars), legumes etc. With low-carb (avoiding good carbs) you lose out on micronutrients that are ideal for good health. I have been losing weight about 1.5 lbs per week while focusing on vegetables, some fruit and making sure I also get good sources of protein and fat. I also work out regularly with cardio and strength training. In other words, the same tried and true formula that works for most MFPers. Does it lead to drastic quick weight loss? No. Does it lead to slow but very steady loss and do I feel I have high energy and a plan I can sustain? Yes.

    Less pop, twinkies, white bread etc. - no brainer. Less veggies, fruit and legumes? (really people, come on).
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Options
    Houlihan17---> your link: http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/macronutrients.htm

    Sometimes people enjoy reading these threads and responses, and sometimes thy just want the link. Hope this helps. :)
  • gina_nz_
    gina_nz_ Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I honestly don't understand all this talk about carbs, which is one of the three macronutrients along with protein and fat, as if they are all "bad" when the real issue is to choose the right carbs and foods that are high in processed, refined simple sugars which provide calories, but very little nutrition. Yes, people have health conditions that mean a certain carbs, such as wheat for celiacs, that need to be avoided but carbs include literally hundreds of choices.

    (quote)

    WHY DO WE NEED CARBOHYDRATES?

    Carbohydrates are the body’s main source of fuel.
    Carbohydrates are easily used by the body for energy.
    All of the tissues and cells in our body can use glucose for energy.
    Carbohydrates are needed for the central nervous system, the kidneys, the brain, the muscles (including the heart) to function properly.
    Carbohydrates can be stored in the muscles and liver and later used for energy.
    Carbohydrates are important in intestinal health and waste elimination.

    Fiber refers to certain types of carbohydrates that our body cannot digest. These carbohydrates pass through the intestinal tract intact and help to move waste out of the body. Diets that are low in fiber have been shown to cause problems such as constipation and hemorrhoids and to increase the risk for certain types of cancers such as colon cancer. Diets high in fiber; however, have been shown to decrease risks for heart disease, obesity, and they help lower cholesterol. Foods high in fiber include fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products.

    (unquote)

    Carbs include low calorie, nutrition dense food including vegetables, fruit (berries are cancer prevention superstars), legumes etc. With low-carb (avoiding good carbs) you lose out on micronutrients that are ideal for good health. I have been losing weight about 1.5 lbs per week while focusing on vegetables, some fruit and making sure I also get good sources of protein and fat. I also work out regularly with cardio and strength training. In other words, the same tried and true formula that works for most MFPers. Does it lead to drastic quick weight loss? No. Does it lead to slow but very steady loss and do I feel I have high energy and a plan I can sustain? Yes.

    Less pop, twinkies, white bread etc. - no brainer. Less veggies, fruit and legumes? (really people, come on).

    Good for you. I eat a lot of vegetables thanks, and get my all daily fiber from them. We are not anti vegetables and fruit. People can make their own decisions on what to put in their mouth. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make everything a fact.
  • NextPage
    NextPage Posts: 609 Member
    Options
    I honestly don't understand all this talk about carbs, which is one of the three macronutrients along with protein and fat, as if they are all "bad" when the real issue is to choose the right carbs and foods that are high in processed, refined simple sugars which provide calories, but very little nutrition. Yes, people have health conditions that mean a certain carbs, such as wheat for celiacs, that need to be avoided but carbs include literally hundreds of choices.

    (quote)

    WHY DO WE NEED CARBOHYDRATES?

    Carbohydrates are the body’s main source of fuel.
    Carbohydrates are easily used by the body for energy.
    All of the tissues and cells in our body can use glucose for energy.
    Carbohydrates are needed for the central nervous system, the kidneys, the brain, the muscles (including the heart) to function properly.
    Carbohydrates can be stored in the muscles and liver and later used for energy.
    Carbohydrates are important in intestinal health and waste elimination.

    Fiber refers to certain types of carbohydrates that our body cannot digest. These carbohydrates pass through the intestinal tract intact and help to move waste out of the body. Diets that are low in fiber have been shown to cause problems such as constipation and hemorrhoids and to increase the risk for certain types of cancers such as colon cancer. Diets high in fiber; however, have been shown to decrease risks for heart disease, obesity, and they help lower cholesterol. Foods high in fiber include fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products.

    (unquote)

    Carbs include low calorie, nutrition dense food including vegetables, fruit (berries are cancer prevention superstars), legumes etc. With low-carb (avoiding good carbs) you lose out on micronutrients that are ideal for good health. I have been losing weight about 1.5 lbs per week while focusing on vegetables, some fruit and making sure I also get good sources of protein and fat. I also work out regularly with cardio and strength training. In other words, the same tried and true formula that works for most MFPers. Does it lead to drastic quick weight loss? No. Does it lead to slow but very steady loss and do I feel I have high energy and a plan I can sustain? Yes.

    Less pop, twinkies, white bread etc. - no brainer. Less veggies, fruit and legumes? (really people, come on).

    Good for you. I eat a lot of vegetables thanks, and get my all daily fiber from them. We are not anti vegetables and fruit. People can make their own decisions on what to put in their mouth. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make everything a fact.

    Gina Nz - I am not quite sure why you took this as a personal attack. Of course I think people have the right to make personal choices about what they eat. If you read through the comments there are a lot of blanket statements as if all carbs were bad and I was just pointing out that many choices are good and contain vital nutrients and some not so much.
  • jellybeanhed313
    jellybeanhed313 Posts: 344 Member
    Options
    Bump for later.
  • gina_nz_
    gina_nz_ Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I honestly don't understand all this talk about carbs, which is one of the three macronutrients along with protein and fat, as if they are all "bad" when the real issue is to choose the right carbs and foods that are high in processed, refined simple sugars which provide calories, but very little nutrition. Yes, people have health conditions that mean a certain carbs, such as wheat for celiacs, that need to be avoided but carbs include literally hundreds of choices.

    (quote)

    WHY DO WE NEED CARBOHYDRATES?

    Carbohydrates are the body’s main source of fuel.
    Carbohydrates are easily used by the body for energy.
    All of the tissues and cells in our body can use glucose for energy.
    Carbohydrates are needed for the central nervous system, the kidneys, the brain, the muscles (including the heart) to function properly.
    Carbohydrates can be stored in the muscles and liver and later used for energy.
    Carbohydrates are important in intestinal health and waste elimination.

    Fiber refers to certain types of carbohydrates that our body cannot digest. These carbohydrates pass through the intestinal tract intact and help to move waste out of the body. Diets that are low in fiber have been shown to cause problems such as constipation and hemorrhoids and to increase the risk for certain types of cancers such as colon cancer. Diets high in fiber; however, have been shown to decrease risks for heart disease, obesity, and they help lower cholesterol. Foods high in fiber include fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products.

    (unquote)

    Carbs include low calorie, nutrition dense food including vegetables, fruit (berries are cancer prevention superstars), legumes etc. With low-carb (avoiding good carbs) you lose out on micronutrients that are ideal for good health. I have been losing weight about 1.5 lbs per week while focusing on vegetables, some fruit and making sure I also get good sources of protein and fat. I also work out regularly with cardio and strength training. In other words, the same tried and true formula that works for most MFPers. Does it lead to drastic quick weight loss? No. Does it lead to slow but very steady loss and do I feel I have high energy and a plan I can sustain? Yes.

    Less pop, twinkies, white bread etc. - no brainer. Less veggies, fruit and legumes? (really people, come on).

    Good for you. I eat a lot of vegetables thanks, and get my all daily fiber from them. We are not anti vegetables and fruit. People can make their own decisions on what to put in their mouth. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make everything a fact.

    Gina Nz - I am not quite sure why you took this as a personal attack. Of course I think people have the right to make personal choices about what they eat. If you read through the comments there are a lot of blanket statements as if all carbs were bad and I was just pointing out that many choices are good and contain vital nutrients and some not so much.

    I didn't take it as a personal attack. Read what you wrote and quoted. "Less veggies, fruit and legumes? (really people, come on)".
  • snarlingcoyote
    snarlingcoyote Posts: 399 Member
    Options
    Extremely low carb diets may be a temporary help for people who have medical issues but for the vast majority of people no carb, low carb diets will have side effects in the long run and is completely unnecessary to weight loss.

    Our bodies need carbs. They increase serotonin levels in our brains and give us energy. There are studies now showing how people who eat extremely low carbs have more depression issues and also memory problems. I would never say eat a giant bowl of pasta every night and eat bags of chips for breakfast but in the long run most people eating this way will fall back on 'everything in moderation and exercise' because that is what is sustainable and what works.

    I've never actually seen any studies to indicate that low-carb diets have long-term side effects. I have seen critics use "we don't know what the long-term side effects are" as an argument against them. But I'll find out what the long-term affects are. I intend to continue with 50 g/day until I reach my goal and then I'll increase to 100-150 g/day or at whatever level I find comfortable for maintenance - for the rest of my life. I'll let you know if I experience any side effects.

    Our bodies don't need carbs. There are many things that increase serotonin levels - like sunlight - and give us energy - like fat.

    Please site your sources for those studies about low-carbers having more depression issues. Because my depression decreased after I started eating low-carb. I did have some memory problems for a few days. This is part of the transition. That's the problem with many of the studies that decry low-carb diets - they focus on the first few weeks when there's a lot of change happening. Since getting over that hump, my memory, energy, and focus have gotten better.

    I've tried "everything in moderation and exercise". It wasn't sustainable, and it didn't work. When I first read about low-carb diets I compared the claims to my previous low-calorie diet attempts. What stood out to me is that on days when I followed my calorie limit, I considerably exceeded my fat limit. And days when I ate close to carb limit, I significantly exceeded my calorie limit.

    Please cite your sources the body doesn't need carbs and that blood glucose levels of 0 would be perfectly fine. Unless glucose suddenly is not a carbohydrate.

    There are however plenty of studies showing negative impact on cognition and mood for low carb diets, a quick search will turn up a bunch

    I didn't say blood glucose of 0 is fine. I said we don't need carbs to increase serotonin and provide energy, which was in response to the assertion that we do need carbs to increase serotonin and provide energy. Context matters.

    I've addressed the "plenty of studies showing negative impact on cognition and mood for low carb diets" comment as well. 1) I said I didn't experience it, which is anecdotal evidence that it doesn't effect everybody; and 2) I said many of those studies were done in the first few weeks during a transition, which would be a severe flaw in the study. Finding flaws in the studies is part of the discussion - a discussion technique I know you are well aware of.

    The whole purpose of my response, is to share my experience, which contradicts many of the claims that MFP's armchair nutritionists like to lecture low-carbers about. In fact, there are lots of people who can personally contradict those dire warnings about low-carb diets. You just don't want to listen to them.

    "Our bodies don't need carbs. " Indeed

    Too bad the plural of anecdote is not data nor evidence

    As for short term, here you go

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558

    Thanks for wasting my time! I just went to read that article.

    I glanced through the entire article. . .fbut the abstract conclusion sums it up:

    "Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing."

    It didn't prove anything like what you claimed it did.
  • heathgmorris
    heathgmorris Posts: 4 Member
    Options

    Thanks for wasting my time! I just went to read that article.

    I glanced through the entire article. . .fbut the abstract conclusion sums it up:

    "Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing."

    It didn't prove anything like what you claimed it did.

    I think he was banking on nobody reading it.

    From the study:
    Values for the cognitive functioning tests are reported in the Table. At baseline, there was no significant difference between groups for working memory or speed of processing. Overall, the mixed-model analysis showed significant improvements in working memory over time (P < .001 for time effect) as a result of the long-term maintenance of improvements that occurred during the initial 8 weeks of the study; no differential effect of diet treatment was observed (P = .88 for time × diet interaction). For speed of processing, although there was a significant main effect of time (P = .011) that arose because of an initial reduction in task performance time after 8 weeks, rebound was evident after 12 months in both groups, and across the entire study period, there was no statistically significant difference between groups (P = .49 for time × diet interaction) (Table). The completer's analysis using ANCOVA gave similar results for these outcomes. At week 52, there was a significant inverse correlation between the change in working memory and the change in fasting plasma insulin levels (r = 0.34; P = .007).
  • snarlingcoyote
    snarlingcoyote Posts: 399 Member
    Options
    I eat ketogenically to control a neurological condition. Before I started eating this way, because it seemed unhealthy, I did my research by reviewing juried nutritional research journals for anyting about "low-carb" or "ketogenic" for about a week and printing off the results, then comparing findings. I found that there seemed to be some benefits and some drawbacks to eating ketogenically, but that they were about the same as other forms of specific eating, on the balance of it. There were no conclusive long-term studies about the effects eating ketogenically, but the short-term studies showed no ill-effects.

    I then researched for the uses of ketogenic eating and found that while there have been no studies done on people eating this way to control my neurological condition, there have been studies on other similar conditions that show improvement and the consensus is that more research needs to be done, because this diet may work well for any number of neurological conditions where there seems to be a malfunction of neurological pathways. My own neurologist, when I told him of my scheme got a very interested look and said "well it makes sense. Ketosis works for epilepsy, and the drugs I can give you are all primarily prescribed for epilepsy."

    I've learned lots of tricks to get my body into ketosis after, ahem, not eating well. (Fasting will put me into ketosis within a day, no matter how much wedding cake I ate the night before.) And I've learned the drawbacks to not eating properly. (I pee black and rusty colored blood after I take ibuprofen - I was taking so many to get relief when I didn't eat properly that now I seem to have damaged my kidneys.)

    This isn't a diet fad or a short-term thing for me. This isn't how I lose weight. This is how I can manage to live normally without taking drugs like Tegretol or having surgery. I monitor the journals and the articles, but have yet to find anything that says this way of eating is truly better or worse than any other in toto.

    Oh, my carbs - I try to stay under 20 or 25.
  • pinkupooh
    pinkupooh Posts: 155
    Options
    bumping for all the good info lot of you have put in here.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options

    Thanks for wasting my time! I just went to read that article.

    I glanced through the entire article. . .fbut the abstract conclusion sums it up:

    "Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing."

    It didn't prove anything like what you claimed it did.

    I think he was banking on nobody reading it.

    From the study:
    Values for the cognitive functioning tests are reported in the Table. At baseline, there was no significant difference between groups for working memory or speed of processing. Overall, the mixed-model analysis showed significant improvements in working memory over time (P < .001 for time effect) as a result of the long-term maintenance of improvements that occurred during the initial 8 weeks of the study; no differential effect of diet treatment was observed (P = .88 for time × diet interaction). For speed of processing, although there was a significant main effect of time (P = .011) that arose because of an initial reduction in task performance time after 8 weeks, rebound was evident after 12 months in both groups, and across the entire study period, there was no statistically significant difference between groups (P = .49 for time × diet interaction) (Table). The completer's analysis using ANCOVA gave similar results for these outcomes. At week 52, there was a significant inverse correlation between the change in working memory and the change in fasting plasma insulin levels (r = 0.34; P = .007).

    You are correct, that's what I was banking on. The poster I responded to, said there were no longer term studies on the subject, in which I provided one
    As previously reported,13 both groups had an initial reduction in scores on the BDI, SAI, and POMS (including the TMDS and the 6 subscales: tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, and confusion-bewilderment) that was of similar magnitude by week 8. However, over the longer term, the overall course of change on the SAI, TMDS, and anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, and depression-dejection subscales of the POMS differed between the 2 treatment groups (P < .05 for time × diet interaction) because the average scores for these parameters decreased initially in both diet groups and then tended to remain low in the LF group but rebounded toward baseline levels over time in the LC group (Figure 2). Post hoc analysis showed that at week 52 the scores on the POMS subscales of anger-hostility (P = .006), confusion-bewilderment (P = .02), and depression-dejection (P = .05) and the TMDS score (P = .001) were significantly lower in the LF group than in the LC group
  • snarlingcoyote
    snarlingcoyote Posts: 399 Member
    Options

    Thanks for wasting my time! I just went to read that article.

    I glanced through the entire article. . .fbut the abstract conclusion sums it up:

    "Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing."

    It didn't prove anything like what you claimed it did.

    I think he was banking on nobody reading it.

    From the study:
    Values for the cognitive functioning tests are reported in the Table. At baseline, there was no significant difference between groups for working memory or speed of processing. Overall, the mixed-model analysis showed significant improvements in working memory over time (P < .001 for time effect) as a result of the long-term maintenance of improvements that occurred during the initial 8 weeks of the study; no differential effect of diet treatment was observed (P = .88 for time × diet interaction). For speed of processing, although there was a significant main effect of time (P = .011) that arose because of an initial reduction in task performance time after 8 weeks, rebound was evident after 12 months in both groups, and across the entire study period, there was no statistically significant difference between groups (P = .49 for time × diet interaction) (Table). The completer's analysis using ANCOVA gave similar results for these outcomes. At week 52, there was a significant inverse correlation between the change in working memory and the change in fasting plasma insulin levels (r = 0.34; P = .007).

    You are correct, that's what I was banking on. The poster I responded to, said there were no longer term studies on the subject, in which I provided one
    As previously reported,13 both groups had an initial reduction in scores on the BDI, SAI, and POMS (including the TMDS and the 6 subscales: tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, and confusion-bewilderment) that was of similar magnitude by week 8. However, over the longer term, the overall course of change on the SAI, TMDS, and anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, and depression-dejection subscales of the POMS differed between the 2 treatment groups (P < .05 for time × diet interaction) because the average scores for these parameters decreased initially in both diet groups and then tended to remain low in the LF group but rebounded toward baseline levels over time in the LC group (Figure 2). Post hoc analysis showed that at week 52 the scores on the POMS subscales of anger-hostility (P = .006), confusion-bewilderment (P = .02), and depression-dejection (P = .05) and the TMDS score (P = .001) were significantly lower in the LF group than in the LC group

    Reading. It's Fundamental.

    Your quote shows that negative moods initially reduced for both groups. Longer term, those scores remained low for the low-fat group but rebounded to the baseline (original score) for the low-carb group. That's in the abstract. First sentence.
  • jodyblanchard
    jodyblanchard Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    I just wish people could get the facts straight on what Ketogenic means. Clearly, hearsay is not always the truth. It does not mean Ketoacidosis, nor muscle loss.

    Amen, Sista

Categories