What has taken over MFP more Keto Threads or ACV Threads
Options
Replies
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking"
.
Could be. It could be I am a bit defensive. Perhaps I am seeing "sugar is the debil" and "I eat a treat everyday and I'm still alive" or "it helps epileptics and that's it" implied in threads when it is not.
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
There are health claims to keto that are true, even if not everyone gets to experience them. No treatment is 100% effective for everybody. The keto benefits I know of are reduced appetite and cravings, slightly accelerated losses (small and mainly in those with IR), improved skin and hair without weight loss, improved mental clarity including possibly helping those with dementia, better BG control within days without weightloss, improved lipid panels without weight loss, improved AI symptoms without weight loss, beneficial effects on hormones without weight loss... I think that's it. And of course, not everyone experiences those.
A lot of these claims are also the same claims that can be attributed to many dietary styles. I suspect most of which is driven by going from eating really crappy, low nutrient foods, to super higher nutrients foods and taking an active roll in your health. I'd definitely say there is a benefit to carb restriction to insulin related health issues (diabetes, PCOS, IR) and that is well documented. Regarding the bold, I believe that has mostly been supported with the increases in MUFA/PUFA and decreases in sugar content, but they tend to be small and short term studies. So it's hard to tell long term effects.
From your previous comments, there are just as many battles/arguments when you get the wild vegan/plant based claims as you do the ketogenic; for example, it is inevitable that if there is a milk thread, that someone will make a link between baby cows and how they get big (because lets completely ignore how we are genetically designed and little things like natural growth hormones). Although, they tend to come from people who just joined the lifestyle and has fallen for the propaganda.
What generally gets me, is people talk about these benefits and will throw studies in there to support their lifestyle, but if you actually dig into their lifestyle, it doesn't align to the studies. For example, people will suggest that LCHF/keto is muscle sparring. And while that can be true, if you look at the studies, it's often in line with all protein studies (1.5-2.2g/kg) which often the person touting it, doesn't follow.
ETA: I enter all threads because I am an equal opportunity hater, lol. And I love the hateful PM's I get when I disprove peoples propaganda.7 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
The implication that eating a keto diet allows a person to consume more calories than they need and still lose weight. I have yet to see anyone state that, but it's heavily hinted at by at least one poster.
I've seen numerous people state exactly that in numerous keto threads over the years.
For the record, it's my personal opinion that keto can be a valid dietary approach for some people. My disconnect is where it's preached as the One True Way and/or magical, miraculous properties are ascribed to it.
I did a keto diet (Atkins) some 15 years ago, for almost a year. I successfully lost about 40 pounds over that time and was generally fairly satiated by it. I quit it because I couldn't see eliminating entire food groups for the rest of my life as a valid strategy, and because of the never-ending gastric issues with it. I quickly learned where the phrase "never trust a fart" originated. It was also very discomforting because it allowed me no flexibility in my diet - if I went "off program" while on vacation or whatever and started eating carby foods, the results were rather....explosive. Vacations are no fun when you don't dare stray more than waddling distance from the nearest toilet at any given time.5 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Could be. It could be I am a bit defensive. Perhaps I am seeing "sugar is the debil" and "I eat a treat everyday and I'm still alive" or "it helps epileptics and that's it" implied in threads when it is not.
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
There are health claims to keto that are true, even if not everyone gets to experience them. No treatment is 100% effective for everybody. The keto benefits I know of are reduced appetite and cravings, slightly accelerated losses (small and mainly in those with IR), improved skin and hair without weight loss, improved mental clarity including possibly helping those with dementia, better BG control within days without weightloss, improved lipid panels without weight loss, improved AI symptoms without weight loss, beneficial effects on hormones without weight loss... I think that's it. And of course, not everyone experiences those.
A lot of these claims are also the same claims that can be attributed to many dietary styles. I suspect most of which is driven by going from eating really crappy, low nutrient foods, to super higher nutrients foods and taking an active roll in your health. I'd definitely say there is a benefit to carb restriction to insulin related health issues (diabetes, PCOS, IR) and that is well documented. Regarding the bold, I believe that has mostly been supported with the increases in MUFA/PUFA and decreases in sugar content, but they tend to be small and short term studies. So it's hard to tell long term effects.
From your previous comments, there are just as many battles/arguments when you get the wild vegan/plant based claims as you do the ketogenic; for example, it is inevitable that if there is a milk thread, that someone will make a link between baby cows and how they get big (because lets completely ignore how we are genetically designed and little things like natural growth hormones). Although, they tend to come from people who just joined the lifestyle and has fallen for the propaganda.
What generally gets me, is people talk about these benefits and will throw studies in there to support their lifestyle, but if you actually dig into their lifestyle, it doesn't align to the studies. For example, people will suggest that LCHF/keto is muscle sparring. And while that can be true, if you look at the studies, it's often in line with all protein studies (1.5-2.2g/kg) which often the person touting it, doesn't follow.
ETA: I enter all threads because I am an equal opportunity hater, lol. And I love the hateful PM's I get when I disprove peoples propaganda.
Am I not disproving people's propaganda hard enough? I never get hateful PM's anymore, only occasionally frowning triangles.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Could be. It could be I am a bit defensive. Perhaps I am seeing "sugar is the debil" and "I eat a treat everyday and I'm still alive" or "it helps epileptics and that's it" implied in threads when it is not.
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
There are health claims to keto that are true, even if not everyone gets to experience them. No treatment is 100% effective for everybody. The keto benefits I know of are reduced appetite and cravings, slightly accelerated losses (small and mainly in those with IR), improved skin and hair without weight loss, improved mental clarity including possibly helping those with dementia, better BG control within days without weightloss, improved lipid panels without weight loss, improved AI symptoms without weight loss, beneficial effects on hormones without weight loss... I think that's it. And of course, not everyone experiences those.
A lot of these claims are also the same claims that can be attributed to many dietary styles. I suspect most of which is driven by going from eating really crappy, low nutrient foods, to super higher nutrients foods and taking an active roll in your health. I'd definitely say there is a benefit to carb restriction to insulin related health issues (diabetes, PCOS, IR) and that is well documented. Regarding the bold, I believe that has mostly been supported with the increases in MUFA/PUFA and decreases in sugar content, but they tend to be small and short term studies. So it's hard to tell long term effects.
From your previous comments, there are just as many battles/arguments when you get the wild vegan/plant based claims as you do the ketogenic; for example, it is inevitable that if there is a milk thread, that someone will make a link between baby cows and how they get big (because lets completely ignore how we are genetically designed and little things like natural growth hormones). Although, they tend to come from people who just joined the lifestyle and has fallen for the propaganda.
What generally gets me, is people talk about these benefits and will throw studies in there to support their lifestyle, but if you actually dig into their lifestyle, it doesn't align to the studies. For example, people will suggest that LCHF/keto is muscle sparring. And while that can be true, if you look at the studies, it's often in line with all protein studies (1.5-2.2g/kg) which often the person touting it, doesn't follow.
ETA: I enter all threads because I am an equal opportunity hater, lol. And I love the hateful PM's I get when I disprove peoples propaganda.
Am I not disproving people's propaganda hard enough? I never get hateful PM's anymore, only occasionally frowning triangles.
I suspect my mod status leads to higher levels of hate ... go figure. Ironically, I feel I am fairly accepting of the diet and even help people get on track with it.2 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
The implication that eating a keto diet allows a person to consume more calories than they need and still lose weight. I have yet to see anyone state that, but it's heavily hinted at by at least one poster.
I've seen numerous people state exactly that in numerous keto threads over the years.
For the record, it's my personal opinion that keto can be a valid dietary approach for some people. My disconnect is where it's preached as the One True Way and/or magical, miraculous properties are ascribed to it.
I did a keto diet (Atkins) some 15 years ago, for almost a year. I successfully lost about 40 pounds over that time and was generally fairly satiated by it. I quit it because I couldn't see eliminating entire food groups for the rest of my life as a valid strategy, and because of the never-ending gastric issues with it. I quickly learned where the phrase "never trust a fart" originated. It was also very discomforting because it allowed me no flexibility in my diet - if I went "off program" while on vacation or whatever and started eating carby foods, the results were rather....explosive. Vacations are no fun when you don't dare stray more than waddling distance from the nearest toilet at any given time.
I thought that originated from Alli users.1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
The implication that eating a keto diet allows a person to consume more calories than they need and still lose weight. I have yet to see anyone state that, but it's heavily hinted at by at least one poster.
I've seen numerous people state exactly that in numerous keto threads over the years.
For the record, it's my personal opinion that keto can be a valid dietary approach for some people. My disconnect is where it's preached as the One True Way and/or magical, miraculous properties are ascribed to it.
I did a keto diet (Atkins) some 15 years ago, for almost a year. I successfully lost about 40 pounds over that time and was generally fairly satiated by it. I quit it because I couldn't see eliminating entire food groups for the rest of my life as a valid strategy, and because of the never-ending gastric issues with it. I quickly learned where the phrase "never trust a fart" originated. It was also very discomforting because it allowed me no flexibility in my diet - if I went "off program" while on vacation or whatever and started eating carby foods, the results were rather....explosive. Vacations are no fun when you don't dare stray more than waddling distance from the nearest toilet at any given time.
I thought that originated from Alli users.
Keto had pretty much the same effect on me as Alli would. Except mix in constipation sometimes as well. Temporarily going off keto magnified it about tenfold. Not a good experience at all.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
The implication that eating a keto diet allows a person to consume more calories than they need and still lose weight. I have yet to see anyone state that, but it's heavily hinted at by at least one poster.
I've seen numerous people state exactly that in numerous keto threads over the years.
For the record, it's my personal opinion that keto can be a valid dietary approach for some people. My disconnect is where it's preached as the One True Way and/or magical, miraculous properties are ascribed to it.
I did a keto diet (Atkins) some 15 years ago, for almost a year. I successfully lost about 40 pounds over that time and was generally fairly satiated by it. I quit it because I couldn't see eliminating entire food groups for the rest of my life as a valid strategy, and because of the never-ending gastric issues with it. I quickly learned where the phrase "never trust a fart" originated. It was also very discomforting because it allowed me no flexibility in my diet - if I went "off program" while on vacation or whatever and started eating carby foods, the results were rather....explosive. Vacations are no fun when you don't dare stray more than waddling distance from the nearest toilet at any given time.
I thought that originated from Alli users.
Keto had pretty much the same effect on me as Alli would. Except mix in constipation sometimes as well. Temporarily going off keto magnified it about tenfold. Not a good experience at all.
It didn't have that affect on me back in the day, but years of accumulated gluten exposures have messed with my digestive system, and boy howdy, I couldn't do it now.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Could be. It could be I am a bit defensive. Perhaps I am seeing "sugar is the debil" and "I eat a treat everyday and I'm still alive" or "it helps epileptics and that's it" implied in threads when it is not.
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
There are health claims to keto that are true, even if not everyone gets to experience them. No treatment is 100% effective for everybody. The keto benefits I know of are reduced appetite and cravings, slightly accelerated losses (small and mainly in those with IR), improved skin and hair without weight loss, improved mental clarity including possibly helping those with dementia, better BG control within days without weightloss, improved lipid panels without weight loss, improved AI symptoms without weight loss, beneficial effects on hormones without weight loss... I think that's it. And of course, not everyone experiences those.
To be fair, and I think you'd have to concede this point, it's not just keto proponents who come out against sugar in sugar debate threads. You have paleo and clean eating folks chiming in on that one too.
Lemon already addressed the other point I was going to make about other dietary measures addressing AI, skin and hair, mental clarity, and some hormones so I won't bother.
Mostly, I'm tired of the need for this to be seen as a sweeping prescription for "health", and often times as the best option. It's an individual choice, just as my low fat diet is an individual choice.
In matters of something dietary for health, those choices should be between an individual and their doctor, not prescribed on a message board or touted as prescriptions for such. Anecdotes can be shared -- but in a personal way. I think too often generalized statements are made, and they start to irk. I think if there are generalized statements being made, they should be backed up with hard science. Otherwise, stick to personal stories, and I think the pushback would be lessened.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Wasn't there a study done not so long ago that showed that artificial sweeteners actually caused a similar insulin spike to sugars and made so called "diet" drinks effectively pointless? I'm sure I read that somewhere... Aspartame is gross though.1 -
I see your 'pointless' and raise you the 49 lbs I dropped averaging about 1 litre/day of Diet Pepsi.2
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Wasn't there a study done not so long ago that showed that artificial sweeteners actually caused a similar insulin spike to sugars and made so called "diet" drinks effectively pointless? I'm sure I read that somewhere... Aspartame is gross though.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Wasn't there a study done not so long ago that showed that artificial sweeteners actually caused a similar insulin spike to sugars and made so called "diet" drinks effectively pointless? I'm sure I read that somewhere... Aspartame is gross though.
If this was true, diabetics wouldn't be able to safely consume diet drinks. But they do and even the American Diabetes Association includes them on a list of safe beverages for diabetics.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If this was true, diabetics wouldn't be able to safely consume diet drinks. But they do and even the American Diabetes Association includes them on a list of safe beverages for diabetics.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html
Yeah, having taken a few minutes to read up on it more it would appear I wasn't very well informed. Apparently tests on mice found that artificial sweeteners led to changes in gut bacteria resulting in increased blood sugar levels, but these results weren't reproduced in humans.
1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Could be. It could be I am a bit defensive. Perhaps I am seeing "sugar is the debil" and "I eat a treat everyday and I'm still alive" or "it helps epileptics and that's it" implied in threads when it is not.
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
There are health claims to keto that are true, even if not everyone gets to experience them. No treatment is 100% effective for everybody. The keto benefits I know of are reduced appetite and cravings, slightly accelerated losses (small and mainly in those with IR), improved skin and hair without weight loss, improved mental clarity including possibly helping those with dementia, better BG control within days without weightloss, improved lipid panels without weight loss, improved AI symptoms without weight loss, beneficial effects on hormones without weight loss... I think that's it. And of course, not everyone experiences those.
A lot of these claims are also the same claims that can be attributed to many dietary styles. I suspect most of which is driven by going from eating really crappy, low nutrient foods, to super higher nutrients foods and taking an active roll in your health. I'd definitely say there is a benefit to carb restriction to insulin related health issues (diabetes, PCOS, IR) and that is well documented. Regarding the bold, I believe that has mostly been supported with the increases in MUFA/PUFA and decreases in sugar content, but they tend to be small and short term studies. So it's hard to tell long term effects.
From your previous comments, there are just as many battles/arguments when you get the wild vegan/plant based claims as you do the ketogenic; for example, it is inevitable that if there is a milk thread, that someone will make a link between baby cows and how they get big (because lets completely ignore how we are genetically designed and little things like natural growth hormones). Although, they tend to come from people who just joined the lifestyle and has fallen for the propaganda.
What generally gets me, is people talk about these benefits and will throw studies in there to support their lifestyle, but if you actually dig into their lifestyle, it doesn't align to the studies. For example, people will suggest that LCHF/keto is muscle sparring. And while that can be true, if you look at the studies, it's often in line with all protein studies (1.5-2.2g/kg) which often the person touting it, doesn't follow.
ETA: I enter all threads because I am an equal opportunity hater, lol. And I love the hateful PM's I get when I disprove peoples propaganda.
I agree that many of those benefots can be attributed to other diets. Absolutely. Pritkins or Ornish's vegetarian low fat diets can really help people, just not all people - like with keto.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I've seen keto, anti sugar, folks who moderate/can't moderate etc addressed as "is this sustainable" " I can't do that" a lot. I think it's an equal opportunity "mocking".
Could be. It could be I am a bit defensive. Perhaps I am seeing "sugar is the debil" and "I eat a treat everyday and I'm still alive" or "it helps epileptics and that's it" implied in threads when it is not.
Just to clarify from others, what is a "magical" keto claim? The only ones I can come up with is keto is NEEDED for weight loss and keto cures cancer outright. Are there others that are equally untrue?
There are health claims to keto that are true, even if not everyone gets to experience them. No treatment is 100% effective for everybody. The keto benefits I know of are reduced appetite and cravings, slightly accelerated losses (small and mainly in those with IR), improved skin and hair without weight loss, improved mental clarity including possibly helping those with dementia, better BG control within days without weightloss, improved lipid panels without weight loss, improved AI symptoms without weight loss, beneficial effects on hormones without weight loss... I think that's it. And of course, not everyone experiences those.
To be fair, and I think you'd have to concede this point, it's not just keto proponents who come out against sugar in sugar debate threads. You have paleo and clean eating folks chiming in on that one too.
Lemon already addressed the other point I was going to make about other dietary measures addressing AI, skin and hair, mental clarity, and some hormones so I won't bother.
Mostly, I'm tired of the need for this to be seen as a sweeping prescription for "health", and often times as the best option. It's an individual choice, just as my low fat diet is an individual choice.
In matters of something dietary for health, those choices should be between an individual and their doctor, not prescribed on a message board or touted as prescriptions for such. Anecdotes can be shared -- but in a personal way. I think too often generalized statements are made, and they start to irk. I think if there are generalized statements being made, they should be backed up with hard science. Otherwise, stick to personal stories, and I think the pushback would be lessened.
True. It isn't just keto'ers who avoid sugar.
Diet is an individual choice. I agree. That doesn't really address what diet is best for a person though unless the diets are equally beneficial, which can true be in some cases.
I don't think generalizations will ever stop. TBH I don't think they should stop because there is much to learn from others. Generalizations can be very irritating. I agree. Keto'ers face that a lot. Why eat unsual (low carb) when we can/should eat the way everyone else eats? That's one reason why so few long term keto'ers post in the main boards. It does get tiresome from this side too. And pushback happens when it is phrased as a personal anecdote with disclaimers that it may work better for those with IR.
I don't think a "keto is great" thread needs pushback. Just like a "pizza/oreo/beer/ whater is great" thread doesn't need a pushback either.... Not saying you do this, but it happens.
1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I ate high carb as a kid. Cereal for breakfast, with a glass of juice. Lunch was a sandwich with an apple, and often another juice. Dinner was meat starch and vegetable, with a glass of juice or powdered skim milk. Snacks were fruit, raw vegetables (more common during the day or before dinner) and cookies.
I would like to add that I hope people would not hold LCHF misinformation against the diet or all those who use it. Inaccurate info is just that and does not mean the diet, or certain foods, are bad... or excessively good.
This board needs an irony button.
High carb worked for me until it didn't. I have wondered if my diet had not been so high carb growing up and into my twenties, if my health and dietary needs would be different now.
Ironic? For me I see irony in the possibility that a higher carb diet may have led to my need for a low carb diet.
I think that maybe you misunderstand me. I don't find the first half of your post ironic, but rather the second half based on our interactions in the past.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »I ate high carb as a kid. Cereal for breakfast, with a glass of juice. Lunch was a sandwich with an apple, and often another juice. Dinner was meat starch and vegetable, with a glass of juice or powdered skim milk. Snacks were fruit, raw vegetables (more common during the day or before dinner) and cookies.
I would like to add that I hope people would not hold LCHF misinformation against the diet or all those who use it. Inaccurate info is just that and does not mean the diet, or certain foods, are bad... or excessively good.
This board needs an irony button.
High carb worked for me until it didn't. I have wondered if my diet had not been so high carb growing up and into my twenties, if my health and dietary needs would be different now.
Ironic? For me I see irony in the possibility that a higher carb diet may have led to my need for a low carb diet.
I think that maybe you misunderstand me. I don't find the first half of your post ironic, but rather the second half based on our interactions in the past.
You found my experiences with keto as excessively good? Or you found me to be uneducated and misinformed about keto?
2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »I ate high carb as a kid. Cereal for breakfast, with a glass of juice. Lunch was a sandwich with an apple, and often another juice. Dinner was meat starch and vegetable, with a glass of juice or powdered skim milk. Snacks were fruit, raw vegetables (more common during the day or before dinner) and cookies.
I would like to add that I hope people would not hold LCHF misinformation against the diet or all those who use it. Inaccurate info is just that and does not mean the diet, or certain foods, are bad... or excessively good.
This board needs an irony button.
High carb worked for me until it didn't. I have wondered if my diet had not been so high carb growing up and into my twenties, if my health and dietary needs would be different now.
Ironic? For me I see irony in the possibility that a higher carb diet may have led to my need for a low carb diet.
I think that maybe you misunderstand me. I don't find the first half of your post ironic, but rather the second half based on our interactions in the past.
You found my experiences with keto as excessively good? Or you found me to be uneducated and misinformed about keto?
Maybe it means that dumb arguments that not all calories are equal, because to quote Dr. Fung, "your body responds differently to a cookie vs salmon with veggies". Which BTW, is generally the exact dumb crap that is used against flexible dieters.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »I ate high carb as a kid. Cereal for breakfast, with a glass of juice. Lunch was a sandwich with an apple, and often another juice. Dinner was meat starch and vegetable, with a glass of juice or powdered skim milk. Snacks were fruit, raw vegetables (more common during the day or before dinner) and cookies.
I would like to add that I hope people would not hold LCHF misinformation against the diet or all those who use it. Inaccurate info is just that and does not mean the diet, or certain foods, are bad... or excessively good.
This board needs an irony button.
High carb worked for me until it didn't. I have wondered if my diet had not been so high carb growing up and into my twenties, if my health and dietary needs would be different now.
Ironic? For me I see irony in the possibility that a higher carb diet may have led to my need for a low carb diet.
I think that maybe you misunderstand me. I don't find the first half of your post ironic, but rather the second half based on our interactions in the past.
You found my experiences with keto as excessively good? Or you found me to be uneducated and misinformed about keto?
Maybe it means that dumb arguments that not all calories are equal, because to quote Dr. Fung, "your body responds differently to a cookie vs salmon with veggies". Which BTW, is generally the exact dumb crap that is used against flexible dieters.
Even when I was extremely pro-keto (more indifferent now) Fung just...Jesus, is it possible to transmit a fungal infection through text? I swear my brain itches every time I read his drivel.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »I ate high carb as a kid. Cereal for breakfast, with a glass of juice. Lunch was a sandwich with an apple, and often another juice. Dinner was meat starch and vegetable, with a glass of juice or powdered skim milk. Snacks were fruit, raw vegetables (more common during the day or before dinner) and cookies.
I would like to add that I hope people would not hold LCHF misinformation against the diet or all those who use it. Inaccurate info is just that and does not mean the diet, or certain foods, are bad... or excessively good.
This board needs an irony button.
High carb worked for me until it didn't. I have wondered if my diet had not been so high carb growing up and into my twenties, if my health and dietary needs would be different now.
Ironic? For me I see irony in the possibility that a higher carb diet may have led to my need for a low carb diet.
I think that maybe you misunderstand me. I don't find the first half of your post ironic, but rather the second half based on our interactions in the past.
You found my experiences with keto as excessively good? Or you found me to be uneducated and misinformed about keto?
Maybe it means that dumb arguments that not all calories are equal, because to quote Dr. Fung, "your body responds differently to a cookie vs salmon with veggies". Which BTW, is generally the exact dumb crap that is used against flexible dieters.
Even when I was extremely pro-keto (more indifferent now) Fung just...Jesus, is it possible to transmit a fungal infection through text? I swear my brain itches every time I read his drivel.
Pretty much how I feel. I mean, he may be very capable at treating diabetes patients, but that guy and other MD's need to stay in their lane in the road. Stop trying to be a researcher when it's obvious you don't have the education nor knowledge to do so.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions