Ketogenic diet

All pros from my experience. Just do it with real, minimally processed food. You have a lot to research and learn.

www.dietdoctor.com

That's the diet I use. I find it hard to actually eat all 2000 calories on non workout days. The protein keeps you satisfied along with the high fat. It's tough at first to get rid of some of my favorite carbs like milk. But I have found other ways around it. Like unsweetened chocolate almond milk, add some sweeten low in it. Tastes just like regular chocolate milk. Also check out ketokrate. Great low carb snacks shipped to your door once a month. Funny because it comes the same day my dog gets his bark box. Lol. Link below is what I used to get started.

http://www.ruled.me/guide-keto-diet/

The only personal cons for me is that I have trouble going number 2 since you're not eating enough fiber but I've fixed that with magnesium supplements. I've been on the keto diet for a week and have lost 8 lbs. I no longer crave carbs and I am hungry less.


Also another con is when you're socializing you can't drink alcohol...

It depends on your personality and what your goals are. I think its too restrictive and any type of low carb kills my training and strength. But if you can sustain it, its a plausable diet.

In the end, fatloss will be the same with pretty much any diet you choose.

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

For me:

Pros

• Better health (lower blood glucose so insulin resistance is under control, less inflammation, good lipids, better hair and skin, steadier energy, no more reactive hypoglycemia).
• Good food
• Reduced appetie and carb cravings which helped with weight loss
  
• A very slight thermogenic benefit for weight loss
• Mental clarity

Cons

• Food restrictions, mainly around baked goods and treats, but I make my own that are LCHF so I can indulge if I wish.

Try the Low Carber Daily for more info. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group

I actually disagree with this considering fat has the lowest thermic effect compared to carbs and protein especially

There was a recent study that found that over 30days on a very low carb, there was a very slight 100kcal thermogenic effect. It appeared to decline at 30days but it may have continued... or it may not have.

http://proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/01/KD-Hall-abstract.png

The researcher discusses his results here.... Well he sort of contradicts his results. LOL He's an odd one. https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2016/05/06/contradictions-and-cognitive-dissonance-the-kevin-hall-effect/

I lost weight on a ketogenic diet faster than I expected to based on my CICO calculations. Perhaps the thermogenic effect was part of it. It isn't large. Perhaps 12 lbs per year at most. Protein hasnearly double the effect. Carbs? Not so much.

Ask yourself..if you want a diet..or if you want a lifestyle change.

Diets, tend to not work in the long run. People lose weight. Quit Diet. Regain Weight.

Research your body, and how to lose and maintain weight loss. Research foods.

This is the problem I have with Keto..it seems to be the latest "Fad" diet. (and by fad..that does not mean it doesn't work...simply, why are you thinking of trying it? Because you see so many people post Keto? Greatest diet ever? Never felt better?)

Do your own research..on weight loss. BMI, BMR, TDEE, CICO, etc etc.

Are you going to exercise as well? How much? What are your goals?

Pros: For some people it is an easy way to cut calories and helps with appetite. If you tend to overeat foods with carbs (even if they get as many or more calories from fat) it can be a fun (for some) way of motivating yourself not to eat them, especially if you get into some kind of carb group (there's one here) or buy into the Kool-Aid that not eating carbs is somehow superior. That seems to help some eat better, annoying as it can be.

Cons: I like many carbs, including foods like oats, potatoes, sweet potatoes, legumes, fruits, vegetables (many are so low cal it doesn't matter, but I enjoy more starchy root veg like carrots and turnips and parsnips and beets and winter squash, etc.), and consider all of these foods really good for me, would hate to have to worry about eating them. I already eat a pretty balanced and healthful diet with lots of vegetables and enough protein, so feel no need to change things up dramatically. I find carbs are helpful in athletic training, for me. I quite enjoy a dish built around pasta or an occasional sandwich and I have zero difficulty eating starchy carbs in moderation (never understand when people claim a typical serving of pasta--56 g or whatever--is too small), so it seems weird to cut out foods I would never overeat. Sweets in moderation can be part of a healthful, balanced diet, and I'd rather eat them in moderation than not at all (and don't have some kind of overwhelming sweet tooth anyway). Oh, and for me fat is far less filling than carbs and I simply don't find the notion of eating a huge percentage of my diet in fat pleasant (and don't believe that sat fat is not a concern or that enormous amounts of meat is a great idea, as many keto types claim).

Basically, it depends on you. I like having more variety rather than less.

@lemurcat12

I eat LCHF, and I enjoy the support of the LCD group, but I don't think of it as a superior way of eating exept in the sense that it is better for my personal health. I try to adhere to it because it helps with the (unfortunate) insulin resistance that I have (verified by my endocrinologist). I like carbs, though I don't miss the heartburn I used to get from pasta. My motivation for keeping total carbs under 60g, which is low enough for me, is health-driven, and not because I consider it superior. Fortunately, I like this way of eating most of the time, which makes it sustainable. I certainly don't intend to be annoying to anyone because of my way of eating.

One of the things I do not like about LCHF is that, like you, I also love root vegetables, as I mentioned in an earlier post. I fully admit that is the hard part, to measure and limit root vegetables and sugar snaps.

Also, I agree that enormous amounts of meat aren't necessary; "adequate protein" is the usual recommendation for LCHF diets. I know there are people that eat saturated fats without concern on LCHF, but there are many of us who focus on olive oil, salmon, avocado, and nuts for fat.

As many posts as you have made, I would venture to guess that you already know that there are people like me, probably quite a few, who eat LCHF foods that are nutritious and not necessarily high in the controversial saturated fats. Do you think the majority do otherwise? (I don't know the answer to that question.)

psulemon wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

pinggolfer96 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

For me:

Pros

• Better health (lower blood glucose so insulin resistance is under control, less inflammation, good lipids, better hair and skin, steadier energy, no more reactive hypoglycemia).
• Good food
• Reduced appetie and carb cravings which helped with weight loss
  
• A very slight thermogenic benefit for weight loss
• Mental clarity

Cons

• Food restrictions, mainly around baked goods and treats, but I make my own that are LCHF so I can indulge if I wish.

Try the Low Carber Daily for more info. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group

I actually disagree with this considering fat has the lowest thermic effect compared to carbs and protein especially

There was a recent study that found that over 30days on a very low carb, there was a very slight 100kcal thermogenic effect. It appeared to decline at 30days but it may have continued... or it may not have.

http://proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/01/KD-Hall-abstract.png

The researcher discusses his results here.... Well he sort of contradicts his results. LOL He's an odd one. https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2016/05/06/contradictions-and-cognitive-dissonance-the-kevin-hall-effect/

I lost weight on a ketogenic diet faster than I expected to based on my CICO calculations. Perhaps the thermogenic effect was part of it. It isn't large. Perhaps 12 lbs per year at most. Protein hasnearly double the effect. Carbs? Not so much.

IRT to the KH study, if you watch the interview, the increase in EE only lasted 5 days, but during that time, fat loss did not occur. I suspect the increase in EE was due to switching energy systems. Keep in mind going from a moderate to high carb diet down to a keto diet will have large decreases in water weight/glycogen.

Also, with IR, there are some studies that would suggest a decrease in RMR with high carb diets. So I am not surprised you lost much quicker going to keto. If someone has similar variables that you have, this is a great diet. Outside of that though, fat loss will not be any greater.

The study in full: http://sci-hub.cc/10.3945/ajcn.116.133561

The interview seems contradictory to the results. It seems almsot like he's discussing another study. In the interview he stresses how there is not a greater EE in the KD but then the study is called “Energy Expenditure Increases Following An Isocaloric Ketogenic Diet in Overweight And Obese Men.” It really is sort of funny.

But I digress. Yes. Losses on a ketogenic diet are generally not greater than a high calorie diet, by any significant amount, unless they have IR. So people with T2D, prediabetes, PCOS, NAFLD and some Alzheimer's may benefit from a KD... Roughly have of North America would lose slightly faster on a ketogenic diet. Those who are insulin sensitive will probably not see easier weight loss.

I am starting ketone if diet at recommendation of Doctor as I am one point away from diabetes

nvmomketo wrote: »

I was going to edit add (but MFP got weid on me) that the greater EE on the KD in the chamber worked out to be about 57 kcal, but the Doubly Labelled Water put the greater KD EE at 151 kcal... But they weren't looking at that so it was largely ignored in the conclusions.

Still not a large metabolic advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.

It was only an increase for a few weeks and quickly feel off.

"The time course of the unadjusted EEchamber changes is depicted in Figure 3A, illustrating that there was no significant linear trend over time during the BD period (P = 0.76), and introduction of the KD coincided with an increase in EE by ~100 kcal/d in the first week, after which there was a significant linear decrease over time (P = 0.002)."


And further explained:

"The rapid increase in SEE and EEchamber within the first week of the KD may have been caused by increased hepatic oxygen consumption proportional to the rate of ketogenesis (39). For ketogenesis to fully explain the observed early ~200-kcal/d increase in SEE requires ~150 g/d of ketogenesis (16), which is commensurate with both the observed circulating ketone concentrations as well as the urinary excretion rate, and implies a rate of ketogenesis approximately half of that achieved within 1 wk of fasting when ketogenesis reaches a maximum (15). The KD likely also increased the flux through the energy-requiring gluconeogenic pathway as well as the triglyceride fatty acid cycle, both of which would be expected to slightly increase EE (26, 40)."



And here is further discussion in the conclusion:

"This study demonstrated that transitioning from the BD to the KD coincided with a substantial decrease in daily insulin secretion and 24-h RQ, increased circulating FFA and ketones, and marginal increases in EEchamber and SEE. These data, although somewhat confounded by ongoing weight loss, suggest that large isocaloric changes in the proportion of dietary carbohydrate to fat transiently increase EE by only ~100 kcal/d after adjusting for body weight and composition. Furthermore, the body weight and composition adjustments likely overestimated the EE changes during the KD because much of the weight loss was likely from water rather than loss of metabolically active tissues."

And even makes an observation about other studies:

"Several controlled feeding studies have demonstrated significant differences in EE between isocaloric diets with differences in dietary protein (23–25). Unless accompanied by an increase in dietary protein (22, 26), carbohydrate restriction has not previously been observed to increase EE. Rather, studies that use clamped dietary protein and varying carbohydrates from 20% to 75% of total calories have found either small decreases in EE with lower-carbohydrate diets (16, 27–30) or no statistically significant differences (22, 24, 31–38)."


So as KH stated in the video, there was a short increase in EE, but no additional fat loss occurred (in fact, it was temporarily suppressed:

"The carbohydrate–insulin model predicts a greater rate of body fat loss during the KD period. Our data do not support this prediction because body fat loss slowed on transition to the KD, possibly because of augmented utilization of body protein, as indicated by the increased urinary nitrogen excretion that persisted until day 11 of the KD period. The rate of fat loss during the final 2 wk of the KD was similar to that of the baseline period. We suspect that the increased dietary fat resulted in elevated circulating postprandial triglyceride concentrations
throughout the day, which may have stimulated adipose tissue fat uptake (44) and/or inhibited adipocyte lipolysis (45, 46). These mechanistic questions deserve further study, but it is clear that regulation of adipose tissue fat storage is multifaceted and that insulin does not always play a predominant role (16)."