Ketosis
Options
Replies
-
baconslave wrote: »
baconslave, I'm assuming those positive results are merely from the weight loss itself rather than being in a ketogenic state...and 6 months isn't exactly long-term. Interesting info though. At least we know it's safe for a 6 month period of time!
But the study also said that "Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients."
I'll agree that the weight loss itself could have produced the good results. But this also shows, since the diet did produce good results in those areas, that the ketogenic diet did not make those factors worse nor kept the usual improvements from occurring. The study determined that ketogenic diets were SAFE. Not specifically better than anything else. As far as a more extended time period, the piece said they are working on longer term studies. I'm approaching the 6 mo mark soon myself so time will tell. Though there are many people who have done it for a year or more.
Interestingly enough, I've read a few studies that suggest low carb is superior to just cutting calories in the cases of people using it for blood sugar related problems. It has shown that it is more effective at lowering a1c and cholesterol levels. I'll have to find them again. I think I originally got my sources on ebscohost.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »baconslave wrote: »
baconslave, I'm assuming those positive results are merely from the weight loss itself rather than being in a ketogenic state...and 6 months isn't exactly long-term. Interesting info though. At least we know it's safe for a 6 month period of time!
But the study also said that "Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients."
I'll agree that the weight loss itself could have produced the good results. But this also shows, since the diet did produce good results in those areas, that the ketogenic diet did not make those factors worse nor kept the usual improvements from occurring. The study determined that ketogenic diets were SAFE. Not specifically better than anything else. As far as a more extended time period, the piece said they are working on longer term studies. I'm approaching the 6 mo mark soon myself so time will tell. Though there are many people who have done it for a year or more.
Interestingly enough, I've read a few studies that suggest low carb is superior to just cutting calories in the cases of people using it for blood sugar related problems. It has shown that it is more effective at lowering a1c and cholesterol levels. I'll have to find them again. I think I originally got my sources on ebscohost.
That would be interesting reading.0 -
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706139
Here's one that I just randomly found on the Internet. It's along the same lines as the previous ones I've read.
This is my favorite part: Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01). .. 95.2%!0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706139
Here's one that I just randomly found on the Internet. It's along the same lines as the previous ones I've read.
This is my favorite part: Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01). .. 95.2%!
Thanks.
My mother is currently on a lower-carb diet,120g/day, and her A1C has dropped to 5.4. I'm pretty sure she's barely taking any insulin now. I think she'll need to drop lower to decrease her meds any further though.0 -
I hope that this isn't considered a derail of the thread, but I'm coming at this from a completely different perspective. I have no idea at all what a keto diet is. This topic caught my eye because I really enjoy human acid base physiology--Yeah, I know how nerdy that sounded. Anyway, my experience with ketosis comes solely from that perspective not from the diet or weight loss world.
So, why do the diet plan authors recommend ketosis above and beyond the simple notion of taking in fewer calories than you expend? How do followers of these diet plans determine if they are in the state of ketosis? Is it just a basic assumption that if you follow the prescribed diet you will be in a ketotic state or are people actually monitoring their urine or doing blood tests?
0 -
in….because this seems like fun…
for the record, I do not care what people do IF, low carb, ketosis, etc…just don't try to say that one is superior to "boring calorie deficit" and we are good to go ...0 -
MrM27, The information I provided above may be exaggerated, you're right. I'm sure it would take a long time for the body to actually be at risk, but still.... if that is what ketosis eventually can lead to, it doesn't sound healthy to me. One can still achieve weight loss in a healthy way and avoid ketosis by eating only 50g of carbs a day Can I ask then why you aren't a fan of keto?
baconslave, I'm assuming those positive results are merely from the weight loss itself rather than being in a ketogenic state...and 6 months isn't exactly long-term. Interesting info though. At least we know it's safe for a 6 month period of time!
If we thought about things in the sense of it might take a very long time for something to become a risk, possibly, then we wouldn't do anything in life.
I'm not a fan of Keto for myself because:
I don't find it necessary to burn fat.
I love eating pizza, ice cream, bagels, pancakes, waffles, cookies, cereal, brownies on a regular basis.
I like to cut with my calories and carbs as high as possible to allow for as much variety as possible and also to allow myself as much room as possible to adjust calories and macros towards the end of my cut as needed without having to do cardio.
what is that quote from fight club .."the survival timeline for everyone is eventually zero" or something like that…????0 -
I hope that this isn't considered a derail of the thread, but I'm coming at this from a completely different perspective. I have no idea at all what a keto diet is. This topic caught my eye because I really enjoy human acid base physiology--Yeah, I know how nerdy that sounded. Anyway, my experience with ketosis comes solely from that perspective not from the diet or weight loss world.
So, why do the diet plan authors recommend ketosis above and beyond the simple notion of taking in fewer calories than you expend? How do followers of these diet plans determine if they are in the state of ketosis? Is it just a basic assumption that if you follow the prescribed diet you will be in a ketotic state or are people actually monitoring their urine or doing blood tests?
I would recommend it to people who have trouble just lowering calories because it tends to more filling. I would also recommend it above a calorie deficit to those who have the medical conditions that this seems to help. Diabetes, reactive hypoglycemia, metabolic syndrome, seizure disorders, and even some cancer all benefit further from cutting down on carbs as opposed to just cutting calories.
Some people do actually monitor their state with ketostyx and /or blood testing devices. I personally check my blood glucose and use ketostyx. The sticks are usually just to make sure I'm getting enough water. If it's too dark I drink more and up my electrolytes.0 -
I hope that this isn't considered a derail of the thread, but I'm coming at this from a completely different perspective. I have no idea at all what a keto diet is. This topic caught my eye because I really enjoy human acid base physiology--Yeah, I know how nerdy that sounded. Anyway, my experience with ketosis comes solely from that perspective not from the diet or weight loss world.
So, why do the diet plan authors recommend ketosis above and beyond the simple notion of taking in fewer calories than you expend? How do followers of these diet plans determine if they are in the state of ketosis? Is it just a basic assumption that if you follow the prescribed diet you will be in a ketotic state or are people actually monitoring their urine or doing blood tests?
I personally can't tell when I am in keto or not (aside from that my appetite seems to be a lot lower). I do have ketostix but I question their reliability. But every time I check it it says im in ketosis. I know some people can based off of certain factors.
However a week ago we had thanksgiving dinner, and I cheated with my carb intake I had mashed potatoes, dressing, cranberry sauce, carrots, a little bit of sweet potato, however I did not have dessert except for 1 small spoonful from my moms plate.. I was still below my daily calories, but had a guestimated 100-150 or so carbs than my usual 25. I gained 2-3lbs of water weight the next day. Sure I lost it all a couple days later, but still. The next day I was also more hungry than usual. I tested with ketostix and still said I was in ketosis but not sure if I believed it or not.
I find if I stick to <20 grams carbs I have almost no appetite and find it difficult to eat enough calories (I have my calorie deficit set to 35%). 20-25carbs I find I have a good enough appetite to get all of my calories in. When I start creeping up to the 30+ range I find I still am hungry at end of the day with no calorie budget left
I have tested this theory multiple times, different days of the weeks, different weeks, pretty much always seems to be this way.
I tried pure calorie counting in the past, but I was always ravenous and miserable because I couldn't satiate my hunger. This is first time ever where I am not always hungry without eating enough food to feed a hippopotamus.,0 -
I am not a Keto fan but I am not sure of it being any more dangerous than any other diet as long as you supliment calcium etc. Keto diets have been in use since the 20s to treat epilepsy and ADHD and to my knowledge these did not cause serious long term effects other than the fact that those diets generally sucked.
The jury is still out on long term efftects but I don't think Ketosis is either more dangerous or more beneficial than other diets if done properly except that I wont give up my carbs.
ETA I also wouldn't recommend it for endurance athletes since your body would need to generate all glocouse via gluconeogenesis and I am not aware of any top performers who have been successful on Keto diets but if anyone has a study I would be interested.0 -
in….because this seems like fun…
for the record, I do not care what people do IF, low carb, ketosis, etc…just don't try to say that one is superior to "boring calorie deficit" and we are good to go ...
Not saying you're wrong but..it seems to be the better way to go for the obese.
"In a group of obese patients, the VLCK diet was significantly more effective than a standard LC diet. At one year follow-up in the group with VLCK diet, most of the patients loss more than 10 % of their initial weight and lean mass was well preserved."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24584583/
@kellyb28 one year follow up..lean mass well preserved.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »in….because this seems like fun…
for the record, I do not care what people do IF, low carb, ketosis, etc…just don't try to say that one is superior to "boring calorie deficit" and we are good to go ...
Not saying you're wrong but..it seems to be the better way to go for the obese.
"In a group of obese patients, the VLCK diet was significantly more effective than a standard LC diet. At one year follow-up in the group with VLCK diet, most of the patients loss more than 10 % of their initial weight and lean mass was well preserved."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24584583/
@kellyb28 one year follow up..lean mass well preserved.
I can't address the specifics of that study without access to more than simply the abstract listed, but it looks like somebody else did...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646093
The Cochrane Database systematic review does a pretty thorough and respectable job of dissecting the literature.
However, having said that, the original article quoted seems to me to simply boil down to people being randomly assigned to 2 different diets. One diet had fewer calories than the other diet and the people on the one with fewer calories lost more weight.
If they don't control for identical caloric intake (one diet with ketosis and one diet without ketosis) they can't make conclusions about that aspect of the diet.
0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »in….because this seems like fun…
for the record, I do not care what people do IF, low carb, ketosis, etc…just don't try to say that one is superior to "boring calorie deficit" and we are good to go ...
Not saying you're wrong but..it seems to be the better way to go for the obese.
"In a group of obese patients, the VLCK diet was significantly more effective than a standard LC diet. At one year follow-up in the group with VLCK diet, most of the patients loss more than 10 % of their initial weight and lean mass was well preserved."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24584583/
@kellyb28 one year follow up..lean mass well preserved.
I can't address the specifics of that study without access to more than simply the abstract listed, but it looks like somebody else did...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646093
The Cochrane Database systematic review does a pretty thorough and respectable job of dissecting the literature.
However, having said that, the original article quoted seems to me to simply boil down to people being randomly assigned to 2 different diets. One diet had fewer calories than the other diet and the people on the one with fewer calories lost more weight.
If they don't control for identical caloric intake (one diet with ketosis and one diet without ketosis) they can't make conclusions about that aspect of the diet.
The link you provided is low calorie vs low fat. This does not apply to keto as it is high fat.
The first study I posted page back was of diabetes patients and low calorie vs keto. That showed that the keto test group lost more weight, as well. The numbers are pretty much mirrored on all studies I've found so far.
Furthermore, I think doing very low calorie as opposed to just a low calorie and not being on the keto diet would cause more lean body mass to be negatively affected. Which is probably why they didn't do it that way.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »in….because this seems like fun…
for the record, I do not care what people do IF, low carb, ketosis, etc…just don't try to say that one is superior to "boring calorie deficit" and we are good to go ...
Not saying you're wrong but..it seems to be the better way to go for the obese.
"In a group of obese patients, the VLCK diet was significantly more effective than a standard LC diet. At one year follow-up in the group with VLCK diet, most of the patients loss more than 10 % of their initial weight and lean mass was well preserved."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24584583/
@kellyb28 one year follow up..lean mass well preserved.
I can't address the specifics of that study without access to more than simply the abstract listed, but it looks like somebody else did...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646093
The Cochrane Database systematic review does a pretty thorough and respectable job of dissecting the literature.
However, having said that, the original article quoted seems to me to simply boil down to people being randomly assigned to 2 different diets. One diet had fewer calories than the other diet and the people on the one with fewer calories lost more weight.
If they don't control for identical caloric intake (one diet with ketosis and one diet without ketosis) they can't make conclusions about that aspect of the diet.
The link you provided is low calorie vs low fat. This does not apply to keto as it is high fat.
The first study I posted page back was of diabetes patients and low calorie vs keto. That showed that the keto test group lost more weight, as well. The numbers are pretty much mirrored on all studies I've found so far.
Furthermore, I think doing very low calorie as opposed to just a low calorie and not being on the keto diet would cause more lean body mass to be negatively affected. Which is probably why they didn't do it that way.
Here is an interesting study that I have used in a few threads: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046
"KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted."
Full Text:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long
Personally, I think they are effective, but I find over restriction (personal view) is necessary for a lot of people. I am one of those.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »
The link you provided is low calorie vs low fat. This does not apply to keto as it is high fat.
The first study I posted page back was of diabetes patients and low calorie vs keto. That showed that the keto test group lost more weight, as well. The numbers are pretty much mirrored on all studies I've found so far.
You are correct about the Cochrane Database review (not a study--a review of the literature). Sorry about that. I'll look again later. I'm going to take the dog out for a walk.
Anyway, the description of the two groups in the study you linked were:
Group #1: low calorie
Group #2: VERY low calorie + ketogenic
Why wouldn't the VERY low calorie diet group loose more weight than the low calorie control group--no matter if it was ketogenic or not?
Now if the two groups were:
Group #1: low calorie + ketogenic
Group #2: VERY low calorie
...and Group #1 lost more weight, that would be interesting.
0 -
keto works. i went from 152 pounds to 138 in 3 months with it last year. now i'm at 166. this is so much restricted, you have difficulty to eat at the restaurants, i used to avoid my friends when they organised dinners, etc. it sucks even though the results are there. and one day you stop it because you wanna eat a piece of cake so bad and you gain 10% more of your original weight. well it's not worth it in my opinion.0
-
I haven't had issues at too many restaurants. The toughest ones are asian places, as well as my local pizzera (since they don't do wings, all I could have was a salad).. other than that every other restaurant I have found items... ill admit it isn't as exciting/special as before but oh well... have to make sacrifices.
0 -
besilentlydrawn wrote: »keto works. i went from 152 pounds to 138 in 3 months with it last year. now i'm at 166. this is so much restricted, you have difficulty to eat at the restaurants, i used to avoid my friends when they organised dinners, etc. it sucks even though the results are there. and one day you stop it because you wanna eat a piece of cake so bad and you gain 10% more of your original weight. well it's not worth it in my opinion.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
I had the same weight gain problem happen to me with a low calorie low glycemic index diet. It worked for 9 years and then something changed. Now I have to restrict my carbs a lot more than a healthy person. So low carb is sustainable for me..until my pancreas changes its insulin production again..because i can't eat carbs anyway.0 -
besilentlydrawn wrote: »keto works. i went from 152 pounds to 138 in 3 months with it last year. now i'm at 166. this is so much restricted, you have difficulty to eat at the restaurants, i used to avoid my friends when they organised dinners, etc. it sucks even though the results are there. and one day you stop it because you wanna eat a piece of cake so bad and you gain 10% more of your original weight. well it's not worth it in my opinion.
That 10% is just water weight, once you eat the carbs you muscles refill their glycogen stores and that attracts a lot of water. So it's pointless to worry about since it's not fat; however, it might mean something about the diet itself if you are losing water over fat.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »
The link you provided is low calorie vs low fat. This does not apply to keto as it is high fat.
The first study I posted page back was of diabetes patients and low calorie vs keto. That showed that the keto test group lost more weight, as well. The numbers are pretty much mirrored on all studies I've found so far.
You are correct about the Cochrane Database review (not a study--a review of the literature). Sorry about that. I'll look again later. I'm going to take the dog out for a walk.
Anyway, the description of the two groups in the study you linked were:
Group #1: low calorie
Group #2: VERY low calorie + ketogenic
Why wouldn't the VERY low calorie diet group loose more weight than the low calorie control group--no matter if it was ketogenic or not?
Now if the two groups were:
Group #1: low calorie + ketogenic
Group #2: VERY low calorie
...and Group #1 lost more weight, that would be interesting.
You're right that would be interesting. I'm also interested in the potential side effects of just doing very low calorie without ketogenic structure.
I'm not sure if they kept the calorie levels the same in the first study I posted about diabetics and keto vs low calorie showing keto dieters with more weight-loss, better a1c,cholesterol, fasting glucose, etc. I'll have to look into it further.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 984 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions