I don't lose weight- scientific miracle?

Nobody here is an MD so you won't get any consistent and accurate advice.

Um... You do understand that even MDs have inconsistent and inaccurate advice right? You know like Dr. Adkins, Dr. Agatston, and Dr. Joel Fuhrman just to name a few... Very inconsistent and if they're very inconsistent it means at least 2 of 3 are inaccurate.

An MD is always better than those of us without the proper training.....right?
You know? like, they go to school for like a lot of years...?


And yes there are bad MD's and there are good ones..... I didn't mean to upset you by my comment. I just think that an MD will have perhaps more insight into what's going on physically...
I still stand by what i said before OP needs to go to a medical doctor rather than diet "gurus" who are opinionated and judgmental....(which MD's can also be.... not arguing there)

There are a variety of reasons why seeing a doctor or a nutritionist makes sense - however, it doesn't negate the value of also seeking complimentary information and education from other. One can do both and use that differential engine we evolved with.

And even better than any MD is self-awareness. Which the OP is trying to get. While I agree that it is useful for people to seek professional advice, let's not silence the ongoing conversations - proactive caveat emptor.

[/quote

i agree, i still think that the number one step is to consult a professional. op seems to be pretty aware of her situation, she's stated she has suffered from an ED and I bet she's heard all of it.
didn't mean to imply to stop this enlightened thread :-) I just really was trying to reach out to op. not anybody else ( but then again I don't think they're even reading :-)

Peace :-)

are you implying that OP and or I have no common sense? lol come on get real. sneakers and Gatorade? hell! I heard stories before luckily I was blessed with a brain and I can make the executive decision to change doctors ASAP!! if you read my og post I said there Are many MDs who are reluctant to further test tsh levels so I said go to an Endocrinologist!
#payattention
:-)

In this particular case this is real story but obviously exaggerated illustration of the point. The trouble comes when you have advice that "makes sense" yet isn't scientifically validated. The three doctors I mentioned are the proponents to the Atkin's diet, the South Beach Diet, and the Eat to Live diet (a whole foods, vegetable based vegan diet). Each of these three doctors would have given conflicting advice to solve weight loss woes. Which one is right?

totally get you. I've read all those books and I would agree that they're somewhat conflicting ... we could go on and on BUT my main concern was OP because she has suffered from an ED so her system is not perhaps optimal and hence any of our advice might cause more harm than good. I dunno maybe I'm just all wrong'
I'm going back to work now!
peace!

No offense, but do you even science?

The term 'ketogenic' cannot be misapplied to a diet in the sciences. To be ketogenic requires a macronutrient ratio that involves ketosis, and you can't get into ketosis without severe carbohydrate restriction. Therefore, a modest-deficit "reduced carbohydrate" diet could never be a ketogenic diet from a research standpoint, and no research I've ever seen confuses the two.

Ketogenic diets are never confused as anything BUT what they are. To suggest it might be shows your lack of understanding.

First off your starting sentence makes no sense.

I guess you don't spend much time on the internet then ... it's a not-uncommon internet meme ...

Second off you cannot enter into ketosis while consuming adequate protein due to gluconeogenesis. That is why a very low carbohydrate diet that still has high protein is not a ketogenic diet. That's how they're confused. The original ketogenic diet was a 0/15/85 ratio.

I'm not trying to be rude, but check your facts before you go ranting about something with new information.

LOL at suggesting I check my facts. There is NOTHING in anything I've written that isn't factual. You cannot say the same.

Trust me when I say that I do know more about ketosis than you can likely imagine. It's very obvious you've not studied either biochemistry or medicine.

FYI your statement on ketosis is completely wrong. You absolutely enter ketosis consuming adequate protein - you only have difficulty when consuming excess. Adequate protein will vary depending on age, gender, activity/exercise levels, etc. For most women 15% is a good starting point. Those that are more active can usually do well with 20%.

Most men can start with about 20%. I'm an active exerciser and I can eat more. With my exercise levels I have no problems entering ketosis quite quickly on a 5/25/70 level. I maintain nutritional ketosis with <10 / 20-30 / 60-75.

Also of note, studies lasting 6 months of just 30% carbohydrate diets (as opposed to ketogenic) show incredible improvement in SEVERE diabetics. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/21

I'm not sure if you saw this, but I actually referenced this study earlier. The problem is you're confusing incredible improvement with reversing the condition. After 6 months the participants still had A1C levels at diabetic levels. The mean was 7.4% and diabetes is considered to be 6.5% and above.

... and I'll point out the study was NOT of a ketogenic diet. It was "low-carbohydrate" but at 30% of calories from carbohydrate, which is anywhere from THREE to SIX times the maximum carbohydrate to be ketogenic. But the fact remains that even with it NOT being ketogenic, HbA1c levels decreased sharply in these SEVERE diabetics from a baseline of 10.9 ± 1.6% to 7.8 ± 1.5% at 3 months That's a 30% improvement, and it wasn't even ketogenic.

The study you referenced was not of severe diabetics, they averaged an HbA1c of 7.4% at baseline. They only improved to 6.0% at 8 weeks. This is only a 19% improvement. It may be considered a "reversal" for those individuals, but it's actually LESS effective than the ketogenic diet referenced above.

FYI studies of true ketogenic diets also improve levels dramatically, in as little as a few days. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9/figure/F1

You've shown nothing to suggest I'm incorrect. There simply is NO need to adopt a VLED when a VLCKD is obviously much safer overall, easier to adhere to, doesn't require continual medical supervision and just as effective at glycemic control for diabetics.

Studies of shorter duration of true ketogenic dieters show incredible improvement in only a FEW DAYS. I've personally read HUNDREDS of studies on diabetes, and dozens on intervention with ketogenic diets, and you are either severely misinformed or you're willfully spreading some rather dubious propaganda.

Keep working at trying to show me up because you haven't done it yet. I'd love to see a study you think supports this that actually does.

I have no desire nor need to "show you up". What are you, 12 years old? You are certainly acting like it, and you're failing to understand studies, apparently.

Feel free to reference the above study, or the multitude of literature available on the subject. Your attempt to disprove me by referencing a study that isn't even on a ketogenic diet is extremely illogical.

The science is clear that ketogenic diets, even in a moderate caloric deficit, are every-bit as effective at glycemic control to any VLED.

The fact remains you WILL be developing a nutrient deficiency. It's better to prevent one that have to recover from a self-imposed one.

You are actually suggesting people self-impose a nutrient deficiency. I'm stunned this thread isn't locked yet.

What? That makes no sense. How can you create a deficiency if you never become deficient in it? The definition of a nutrient deficiency is lacking in a particular nutrient, but I established that even after months of deprivation of a particular nutrient you still have enough stores to not be in a deficiency. If you were to simply eat some more after a span of months you will never have or approach deficiency.

Different nutrient stores deplete faster than others. Not to mention you're suggesting to people go on this diet WITHOUT medical supervision (when it calls for it) and as such, the dieter wouldn't even know if they are deficient or near-deficient to begin with. As such the deficiency could develop even faster.

To think you can "simply eat more after a span of months" shows you have very little understanding of the topic at-hand.

Adequate in both of our usages is undefined. In my case I'm using it to define enough protein to support gluconeogenesis and in your case you mean an amount that is at least low enough to sustain ketosis.

No, if you have enough protein to cause gluconeogenesis to happen in a way that prevents ketosis, that's not ADEQUATE protein by definition of the word, it's excess. Think about it. What you're saying has nothing to do with the definition of the word ADEQUATE.

To sustain ketosis with 30% protein intake you pretty much have to be eating at a caloric deficit as well which is a secondary requirement. Ketosis has more to do with total protein intake and less to do with ratios.

Actually, I don't need to be in a deficit. I haven't run a deficit the past two weeks and I'm still in fairly deep nutritional ketosis - verified by blood ketone meter. I'm a 48 year old heavy-exerciser (6 days a week - 3 days of lifting, 3 days of HIIT and a couple other bouts of steady-state cardio) and require anywhere from 20-30% in a day depending on what I do.

You don't get reference ranges. Once you're in a designated reference range (or out of) that's the real importance. For example, you cannot assume that insulin sensitivity is proportional to reference fasting glucose ranges (i.e. having a fasting glucose of 70 mg/dL does not mean you have better insulin sensitivity than someone with 90 mg/dL). You're also defining effective in the way that suits you best where as my definition is what is actually reversing the condition. I do acknowledge their starting numbers are different but they had 6 months...

The only number one need look at for overall glycemic control is the HbA1c. (That, BTW, is the "reversal" you are talking about - the HbA1c number - which YOU brought up.) We're not talking insulin sensitivity, we're talking about improvements in HbA1c. When "low-carb" (30%) diets statistically-improve HbA1c better than your VLED, you really have no ground to start from.

Show me a study with VLED's on severe diabetics if you think it reverses the condition. I assure you there are NONE where severe diabetics (HbA1c over 10%) are "reversed" by a VLED.

Your attempt to disprove me by referencing a study that isn't even on a ketogenic diet is extremely illogical.

Here's a better example to illustrate my point http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/34, but yes I was speaking in generalities about the mislabeling of ketogenic diets. That study calls some of the diets ketogenic with 20% carbohydrate intake and they have lesser results with a similar group.

I'm guessing you didn't read it. It does not, anywhere in the full text of the study call any diet "ketogenic" that had a 20% carbohydrate intake.

You're either lying outright or misunderstanding because you're skimming articles quickly in an attempt to look correct. The study you mentioned referenced the 20% diet as 'carbohydrate restricted' - NOT ketogenic. "Recently, four studies have re-examined the effect of carbohydrate restriction on type 2 diabetes. "

Meanwhile it's not like you're pulling out any studies that actually support your point.

BTW the study you erroneously think proves your point actually proves my point. The mean HbA1c went from 7.4% to 6.3%, and over 1/3rd of the study participants were under 6.0%.

Different nutrient stores deplete faster than others. Not to mention you're suggesting to people go on this diet WITHOUT medical supervision (when it calls for it) and as such, the dieter wouldn't even know if they are deficient or near-deficient to begin with. As such the deficiency could develop even faster.

That's a complete straw man argument.

No, it's not. A straw man is a fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic. You said that a VLED doesn't create a nutrient deficiency. I outlined how it can, and I was medically correct.

BTW, leaving out the rest of the comment I posted to try to make a "straw man" out of a very-sound and medically-correct statement is VERY telling ...

To the OP, you are eating the same things every day? Bleh!
Also we don't know how long you have tried to lose weight. One month, one year? 20 years?
As the body ages, it loses the ability to store proteins. Not sure if you are having decreased hormone levels or other factors that might inhibit your weight loss? Are you active? Do you use assist devices?
Are you on any medicine that might help inhibit weight loss, ie. steroids like prednisone, or antibiotics?
Have you been on a low calorie diet for a long time? have you been a yo-yo dieter?
One day of logging makes it difficult for the average mfp friend to see what is really going on. Can't believe that you don't eat out once in a while or have family gatherings/birthdays where other food is available.
just a few questions for starters.

My advice for starting out is to get a kitchen scale and weigh everything that you put in your mouth in grams and cross reference with the mfp library. Log for a few months, check protein levels and sodium levels. then report to us how you are doing.

Good luck.

(and no I don't use a food scale and that may be a gigantic error but I didn't think if you were vegetable based, you needed to. If I eat a medium artichoke vs a medium large artichoke, am I going to be way off?)

IMHO, yes you can still be way off.

For example - this website says 1 med artichoke (120g) = 64 calories. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2308/2

This one says 1 large artichoke (162g) = 76 calories. http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-artichokes-i11007

So if you are logging the first artichoke but eating the second artichoke, there is about a 18% error. If you think you are eating 1300 calories, but have an 18% error you could be eating up to 1530 calories in reality.

The only way to accurately know is to weigh how many grams of artichokes you are eating and log the calories associated with that number of grams.

If you really want to know how much you are eating, get a digital food scale and measure everything for 1 month. I'm willing to bet that you'd lose weight.

i see an Ozeri digital scale on Amazon- is that fine? and then i need a book to reference with calorie counts? (see, this is why i eat as little as possible, food is so un-fun). i just want a tube of goo like an astronaut

That's a pretty good scale from all accounts. It's much more-precise than the old [very analog] one I use ... and if an old, outdated model worked well for me, this should work well for you.

"During the study, only 27 of 151 urine ketone measurements were greater than trace, with one participant accounting for all 7 occurrences of the highest urine ketone reading (large160)."

So on in that regard only a small percentage of participants were actually in ketosis. Now argue what you will, but if you're not in ketosis you're not on a ketogenic diet especially when the ratios aren't near any standard ketogenic diet such as classic or Atkins induction phase.

Again, you show you don't understand ketosis and urine ketone readings. It's well-known that urine ketone readings REDUCE to trace as people keto-adapt. That's why at the end they are all practically at 'trace' instead of 'greater than trace', and earlier on more were at 'greater than trace'.

Of the three types of ketones (acetate, acetoacetate, and beta-hydroxybutyrate) produced by your body, ketostix only measure acetoacetate. This is extremely important to understand, because it turns out that your body produces different quantities of these different types of ketones depending on how long you’ve been in ketosis. If you’ve been in ketosis for a while, you’re going to see a reduction in the “intensity” of what you register on your ketostix ... (Sources: Precision Xtra Ketone Test Strips, Ketostix, Volek/Phinney: The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living)

Regarding the ratio of carbohydrate, yes it was 12% at week two but under 10% at the end of the study. And all intervals showed the total CHO to be under 50g (44.6g was the maximum mean, and it went down to 33.8 by study end) - which virtually all experts agree WILL get you into ketosis. (Reference, "The Ketogenic Diet, Lyle McDonald"). To suggest they weren't in ketosis simply because the ratio isn't 'optimum' is completely incorrect.

At any rate I give up... You're obviously defensive, but if you opened up just a little you might be able to make more progress on your goals. Good luck.

I'm not defensive - I'm simply correcting obviously-incorrect information from someone who posts opinion from poorly-understood studies and/or articles. If you were correct there'd be no issue.

Might be.
Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom.
~ Merry Browne