Anyone read the latest research on Keto by Alan Aragon?
Replies
-
Exactly, man! And I am playing with lower carbs.....at the moment. This coming week will be the 'real world test'. I will share my experiences but want to emphasize that these experiences are mine....everyone is different. Keto is not going to be something - should I end up going that route - that I am going to kinda do when it is convenient. It will be part of the life-style!
And my numbers (dead lift, squat, bench) are not super awesome but not bad for someone who has been doing two of them (squats and dead lifts) for about six months (well, one calendar year with three longer breaks). Not expecting to pick up (see how I did that? My gosh, I am funny af!) where I left off. Actually going to start a full-on program when I get back in there. We will see!!!!!! #SuperExcited3 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »Exactly, man! And I am playing with lower carbs.....at the moment. This coming week will be the 'real world test'. I will share my experiences but want to emphasize that these experiences are mine....everyone is different. Keto is not going to be something - should I end up going that route - that I am going to kinda do when it is convenient. It will be part of the life-style!
And my numbers (dead lift, squat, bench) are not super awesome but not bad for someone who has been doing two of them (squats and dead lifts) for about six months (well, one calendar year with three longer breaks). Not expecting to pick up (see how I did that? My gosh, I am funny af!) where I left off. Actually going to start a full-on program when I get back in there. We will see!!!!!! #SuperExcited
Just keep doing what you need. Your health is the most important variable. And if anything stagger some carbs around your workouts. From my experience, it has shown to be beneficial.3 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »I find it inconclusive. More research is needed.
CICO for weight loss.. Low carb for longer satiation in those who are weak to those delectable temptations. Weight loss is the same in an average person. Weight loss is greater for ketoers ONLY because they would binge in any other environment. Demonizing it doesn't change this fact. If you can't control your eating with regular cico, then any diet in which you can is like a miracle. Whether that be keto, low carb, vegan, or the McDonald's diet.
As an FYI, low carb and keto dont satiate everyone. For some, it does and others it does not. If you are the former, its a great diet. For people like me, i need volume and protein/carbs does that for me.
And while a semantic, cico isnt a diet, it's the energy balance equation.6 -
Agreed. If I do the Keto, I know that there are four "variations" - one specificaly for studs, er, I mean folks who train.
And, if I stay on the low carb route, I am def going to play with carbs (I hesitate to call it timing, because that is something else....and I hesitate to call it 'cycling' but that is likely closer to what I would be doing). I have used these three months not in the gym pretty wisely....I have learned a lot about myself, nutritionally speaking, and what works - and does not work - for me. Well, with the context of that statement being "out of the gym".
Anyway, I appreciate the comments and insight. Truly mean that. But, do not want to hijack this post. Let's get back to the study!!!!1 -
Regarding further parts of the study, in the Facebook discussion, someone brought up how keto affects disease and Aragon responded to just be patient, so there's a lot more to come apparently!3
-
I am very much looking forward to the rest of the study. We have seen quite a lot of anecdotal evidence on these forums about how crap some find trying to bulk while keto, even when using CKD.
And anecdotally for myself, if my carb intake drops too low my workouts tank, I do intense bodyweight interval training as my cardio and it's just awful without a decent amount of carbs. I also need some starchy carbs with my meals to be completely satiated. BUT, carbs are the macro I lower when losing because I want to make sure I get my protein and fat first.
I am not anti-keto/LC, I just think it is pushed by some quarters (not pointing any fingers, this applies outwith MFP too) far too vehemently as this great catch all for everyone. We'll all have our appetite suppressed, we'll all feel more mental clarity etc etc which is patently untrue.
But to reiterate, there was no anti intention in the OP or the research, it is simply a presentation of research which has to be done without bias in order to be taken seriously.7 -
Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.13 -
This is beginning to feel like Trump/Hilary debate on my Facebook page! Bottom line is if it works DO IT! Come on let's get real, for most people in America, we struggle with excess weight.
My feeling is try it all, pick one and stick to it. Make it a life change if you can and be happy with your choice. Don't get to analytical about it all or "it" will just steer you into having the idgaf attitude and eat unhealthy or quit. Now if you are further ahead in your journey or have always been in shape and have had no issues w/weight then go ahead and get your geek on! Science ans stats are great to read but we certainly don't want to run our new people out the doors because of all the crazy rants about what works and what doesn't right? For me, the longer I stay healthy and am focused on my journey the more I want to discover more about the diet I have chosen. Anyway, just my two cents. Good luck to all and let's make today great!2 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
So you're prejudiced against certain people and believe they're trying to demonize keto regardless what they post?7 -
And btw. this is the first time I've heard anyone call Alan Aragon "not reputable". Say what?10
-
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »And btw. this is the first time I've heard anyone call Alan Aragon "not reputable". Say what?
It should be noted that Alan Aragon was on the review panel. The people that conducted the meta-analysis were:- Adam Tzur is the head of SCI-FIT.
- Brandon Roberts works at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is also employed by The Strength Guys.
- Alex Leaf works for Examine.com.
1 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
I actually just re-read the whole meta anaylsis to see if I was missing something. The data seems very neutral in how it was written.
The one thing I really think is interesting is that in many studies there is huge swings in performance between one person to the next, as noted below. It seems pretty consistent with a majority of the studies; of which, those studies are being conducted by some of the leading researchers in the low carb community (phinney, noakes, etc...).
0 -
@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.4
-
Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald are bad *kitten* dudes. There are several others - Dr. Joe Klemczewski comes to mind first. Anyway, maybe the person who is challenging this is unaware of who these folks are? And, that (questioning things) is not a bad thing. At least, I don't think that it is a bad thing.
I just find things interesting. We here in the US are pretty much obese. And we are obese for lots of reasons
<<<<<START RANT HERE>>>>>>
...mostly because we are lazy....not going to say 'Sorry' for that....that is my experience and it is confirmed time and time and time and time and time again.....we make far too many excuses....both for ourselves and for others.
We need to be personally accountable and have personal responsibility and take ownership (nobody wants to ever do that.....even for themselves)......We choose to be lazy and apathetic ("...but it takes so much time to learn all this stuff....can't you just tell me what to do?" - I hear that ALL the time) and then expect to take some magic pill to make our laziness and apathy go away (along with whatever other ailments afflict us). I also hear "...but I go to the gym five times a week..." and then they sit on the sit-down bike and work on their iPad all the while going at a magnificent pace of 1/2 mile an hour. What needs to happen before we here in the US get it? What it usually takes is someone has diabetes and looses a foot, or worse. What it usually takes is someone has a stroke, or worse. But, then it is too late.
Anyway, it just ticks me off to no end how lazy we have become. I will not even get into "not being present"....Ha! I will get y'all later on that rant!
<<<<<END RANT HERE>>>>>
If there is something that we can do to combat that then let's investigate. But, it is my responsibility to take care of me....and your responsibility to take care of you. And, as we all know (but sometimes seem to forget) - we are all different. Not everything works for everyone.....
Anyway, I still find this conversation interesting. Not everyone scrolls through the forums (read: usually just look at the first page).2 -
@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.18 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
Not going to lie, struggling to follow in how you are trying to explain yourself, but how is the science faulty?
I will point out there are several low carbers in this thread. And the majority of us just like science regardless if it's for or against a particular diet.6 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
I actually just re-read the whole meta anaylsis to see if I was missing something. The data seems very neutral in how it was written.
The one thing I really think is interesting is that in many studies there is huge swings in performance between one person to the next, as noted below. It seems pretty consistent with a majority of the studies; of which, those studies are being conducted by some of the leading researchers in the low carb community (phinney, noakes, etc...).
Again.. I was fine with the research. FINE with it. Nothing wrong that I see in it.
The site the site the site. Not the research.. I'm trying to protect the research and OP by pointing out that the site it's on will be attacked.. Please.. just understand that much of what I am saying. Ignore the parts you are misunderstanding.11 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
I actually just re-read the whole meta anaylsis to see if I was missing something. The data seems very neutral in how it was written.
The one thing I really think is interesting is that in many studies there is huge swings in performance between one person to the next, as noted below. It seems pretty consistent with a majority of the studies; of which, those studies are being conducted by some of the leading researchers in the low carb community (phinney, noakes, etc...).
Again.. I was fine with the research. FINE with it. Nothing wrong that I see in it.
The site the site the site. Not the research.. I'm trying to protect the research and OP by pointing out that the site it's on will be attacked.. Please.. just understand that much of what I am saying. Ignore the parts you are misunderstanding.
The site, the site, the site? What is wrong with the site?6 -
I am so lost. What's wrong with where the research analysis is hosted?4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions