Ketogenic diet
Options
Replies
-
The problem with n=1 results is that a layperson who is emotionally and psychologically invested in their own journey can easily attribute their results to the wrong thing.
No one is saying don't do keto even if it's working for you. They're saying don't attribute your success on keto to the idea that it supercedes CICO and don't tell other people it cures medical conditions or changes the laws of physics when the only "proof" available is that very subjective n=1.
N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end. What worked on AVERAGE for 10,000 people may or may not work for any one person. Not being a layperson I think I missed your layperson remark meaning.
I understand CICO as it applies to a closed loop system like a steam engine.
CICO is basically without definition for open loop systems like the human body.
That is why macros of Carbs, Protein and Fats rule the day in human/animal diet science.25 -
Its a yes for me
There are many ways round restricted foods, replace Noodles with Spiraled Zucchini, replace Flour with Almond or Coconut flour, eat SUGAR FREE Ice Cream, the list go on.
Lost 25kg with help MyFitnessPal lost another 5kg and centimetres from my waist on Keto, only eat 2 times day have plenty energy for early am work-out,2 -
Nah, because it's not something I could maintain for the rest of my life.4
-
macrologger wrote: »I did keto for a couple of months over a year ago. Now, this is my experience, but I absolutely hated it. I was tired, lethargic, weak, had headaches, had zero stamina at the gym. I was in ketosis (I was testing with the strips frequently), but I felt depleted. I supplemented with magnesium and potassium and nothing worked with my energy levels. On top of that, I didn't lose a single pound. I rage quit the thing, and started eating all the carbs. All the good, delicious carbs, and my energy increased, my workouts got better, and I no longer felt like I was walking in a fog. Again, this is just my experience, but I would never do it again. I'm tracking macros and seeing results without cutting anything out. You have to find what works for you, but keto was not it for me.
My experience was exactly the same.
I tried everything to feel good on this diet, magnesium, more fat, more salt, different supplements I think it just isn’t the WOE for me. I honestly felt pretty miserable.
I have since discovered I am more of a volume eater and feel full with lots of fibre and protein over fat, where as some people thrive on the high fat low carb diets.
I was so disappointed when it didn’t work for me! I was only trying to lose a little bit of fat and I didn’t lose anything because I found it so hard to feel satieted on my calorie limit.
You read so many rave reviews on this diet though, some even make some pretty unbelievable claims. It clearly works for some I guess.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The problem with n=1 results is that a layperson who is emotionally and psychologically invested in their own journey can easily attribute their results to the wrong thing.
No one is saying don't do keto even if it's working for you. They're saying don't attribute your success on keto to the idea that it supercedes CICO and don't tell other people it cures medical conditions or changes the laws of physics when the only "proof" available is that very subjective n=1.
N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end. What worked on AVERAGE for 10,000 people may or may not work for any one person. Not being a layperson I think I missed your layperson remark meaning.
I understand CICO as it applies to a closed loop system like a steam engine.
CICO is basically without definition for open loop systems like the human body.
That is why macros of Carbs, Protein and Fats rule the day in human/animal diet science.
If N=1 is the only N that counts, why don't you play the lottery? After all, it doesn't matter that there's a 1 in a few million chance to win, you could be the winner anyway.
And CICO does not only apply to closed systems, which are something different than closed loop systems.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The problem with n=1 results is that a layperson who is emotionally and psychologically invested in their own journey can easily attribute their results to the wrong thing.
No one is saying don't do keto even if it's working for you. They're saying don't attribute your success on keto to the idea that it supercedes CICO and don't tell other people it cures medical conditions or changes the laws of physics when the only "proof" available is that very subjective n=1.
N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end. What worked on AVERAGE for 10,000 people may or may not work for any one person. Not being a layperson I think I missed your layperson remark meaning.
I understand CICO as it applies to a closed loop system like a steam engine.
CICO is basically without definition for open loop systems like the human body.
That is why macros of Carbs, Protein and Fats rule the day in human/animal diet science.
When it comes to the topic under discussion, you're absolutely a layperson.18 -
YES! And yes - agreed - it is not for everyone. I haven't felt this good in a very long time. My skin, hair and sleep has improved. I was a sugar craving fool and now all of my cravings are gone. I do enjoy eating this way. It is not "that " restrictive - there is some flexibility once you get through the first 60 days.5
-
catherineg3 wrote: »wow, the carb addiction is strong with these people. eat carbs, body responds with high insulin, get fat (due to insulin response), build insulin resistance, pre-diabetes then possibly even moving up to diabetes and/or heart disease. yes, you can lose weight with high carb low fat and calorie restriction, but it is hard to stick with the extreme calorie restriction needed to maintain your new lower weight and lower metabolism. as long as you keep pouring sugar into your system, it will maintain higher insulin levels that tell your body to store more fat.
I am recently diagnosed type 2 diabetic and must go low carb permanently to control blood sugar levels, lose weight and regain insulin sensitivity. However, the more I find out about how our bodies work, I realize that I can fix this, and the main thing is STOP EATING REFINED CARBS. Even if you don't want to do a strict keto, look at paleo or primal. Even Mediterranian or South Beach diet would be an improvement over the typical American diet with more natural foods.
Longevity and good health are far more important to me than eating sugar.
Why must one be high carb low fat if they're not keto...there's like a whole, huge middle ground. There are also many nutritionally awesome sources of carbs...carbs aren't just sugar and highly refined. Most of you keto people actually need some work on actual nutrition because you clearly don't understand much in regards to carbohydrates.
I'm neither high carb nor low carb...I'm neither high fat nor low fat. I do this thing called a balanced diet...it's chalk full of all kinds of good, whole food nutrition, including nutrient dense carbohydrates.
Should probably also do a bit more research on insulin...it's not the evil that you think it is. It delivers energy to every cell in your body. If you have diabetes, you don't produce enough insulin.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end.
Not when one is using the results to advise what everyone else should be doing. Especially, when one does not understanding why something is or is not working...
14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The problem with n=1 results is that a layperson who is emotionally and psychologically invested in their own journey can easily attribute their results to the wrong thing.
No one is saying don't do keto even if it's working for you. They're saying don't attribute your success on keto to the idea that it supercedes CICO and don't tell other people it cures medical conditions or changes the laws of physics when the only "proof" available is that very subjective n=1.
N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end. What worked on AVERAGE for 10,000 people may or may not work for any one person. Not being a layperson I think I missed your layperson remark meaning.
I understand CICO as it applies to a closed loop system like a steam engine.
CICO is basically without definition for open loop systems like the human body.
That is why macros of Carbs, Protein and Fats rule the day in human/animal diet science.
As usual, you are completely and utterly wrong - as evidenced by just about everyone here that loses/gains at a predictable rate based on real-world results.
11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The problem with n=1 results is that a layperson who is emotionally and psychologically invested in their own journey can easily attribute their results to the wrong thing.
No one is saying don't do keto even if it's working for you. They're saying don't attribute your success on keto to the idea that it supercedes CICO and don't tell other people it cures medical conditions or changes the laws of physics when the only "proof" available is that very subjective n=1.
N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end. What worked on AVERAGE for 10,000 people may or may not work for any one person. Not being a layperson I think I missed your layperson remark meaning.
I understand CICO as it applies to a closed loop system like a steam engine.
CICO is basically without definition for open loop systems like the human body.
That is why macros of Carbs, Protein and Fats rule the day in human/animal diet science.
Wow. Every post you up the ante to try to impress people. What's next?9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end.
Not when one is using the results to advise what everyone else should be doing. Especially, when one does not understanding why something is or is not working...
I think we are all in full agreement on both of your points.
This week I set in on a meeting with a family and their MD and two of his staff members concerning removing one from life support. He covered a lot of n=xxxx stats during the long meeting but in the end the MD brought it back to being all about n=1.
One factor of many that came down to a n=1 was would the patient be willing to modify their eat and lifestyle in general if the high risk surgery was performed successfully?
The answer was NO so now the family as a funeral to attend. This person was aware of n=xxxxxx research but knowingly selected a thinking, eating and moving lifestyle known to lead to a premature death. Many in the family are health care professionals yet still their left and right brains were in a struggle in that meeting. At the funeral they will be saying this event for this person should have been 10-20 years down the road.
Yes we all love data where n=100,000 but in the end n=1 is on only thing that counts if one is a living organism instead of steam engine.
Weight loss and improving health markers in general will always boil down to n=1 to determine success or failure. Just because a WOE is right for one does not meant it right for anyone else in the world. Some seem to forget just because a certain WOE is wrong for them that it MIGHT be the right WOE for someone else.
n=1 is actually the Big Picture of Life for each one of us.
15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end.
Not when one is using the results to advise what everyone else should be doing. Especially, when one does not understanding why something is or is not working...
I think we are all in full agreement on both of your points.
This week I set in on a meeting with a family and their MD and two of his staff members concerning removing one from life support. He covered a lot of n=xxxx stats during the long meeting but in the end the MD brought it back to being all about n=1.
One factor of many that came down to a n=1 was would the patient be willing to modify their eat and lifestyle in general if the high risk surgery was performed successfully?
The answer was NO so now the family as a funeral to attend. This person was aware of n=xxxxxx research but knowingly selected a thinking, eating and moving lifestyle known to lead to a premature death. Many in the family are health care professionals yet still their left and right brains were in a struggle in that meeting. At the funeral they will be saying this event for this person should have been 10-20 years down the road.
Yes we all love data where n=100,000 but in the end n=1 is on only thing that counts if one is a living organism instead of steam engine.
Weight loss and improving health markers in general will always boil down to n=1 to determine success or failure. Just because a WOE is right for one does not meant it right for anyone else in the world. Some seem to forget just because a certain WOE is wrong for them that it MIGHT be the right WOE for someone else.
n=1 is actually the Big Picture of Life for each one of us.
This is actually making the opposite point. It's understanding the large scale results that even lets medical professionals know that a surgery, for example, is high risk. It's understanding the large scale results that lets us know which lifestyle choices are riskier for our health.
If I was discussing potential surgical outcomes with a doctor and they said something like "Well, I have no idea what complication rates it has or what recovery looks like other than this one dude I heard about," I'd run away. We expect decisions for things like surgery to be based on hard data on outcomes, not n=1.
Yes, these decisions have an individual impact. But it's the data that serves as the foundation for our individual choices.
Understanding that we all have just one life and some decisions have profound impacts doesn't mean that data is meaningless. To take this understanding and turn it into a shrugging "who knows anyway, let's go with whatever feels right" is ridiculous.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end.
Not when one is using the results to advise what everyone else should be doing. Especially, when one does not understanding why something is or is not working...
I think we are all in full agreement on both of your points.
This week I set in on a meeting with a family and their MD and two of his staff members concerning removing one from life support. He covered a lot of n=xxxx stats during the long meeting but in the end the MD brought it back to being all about n=1.
One factor of many that came down to a n=1 was would the patient be willing to modify their eat and lifestyle in general if the high risk surgery was performed successfully?
The answer was NO so now the family as a funeral to attend. This person was aware of n=xxxxxx research but knowingly selected a thinking, eating and moving lifestyle known to lead to a premature death. Many in the family are health care professionals yet still their left and right brains were in a struggle in that meeting. At the funeral they will be saying this event for this person should have been 10-20 years down the road.
Yes we all love data where n=100,000 but in the end n=1 is on only thing that counts if one is a living organism instead of steam engine.
Weight loss and improving health markers in general will always boil down to n=1 to determine success or failure. Just because a WOE is right for one does not meant it right for anyone else in the world. Some seem to forget just because a certain WOE is wrong for them that it MIGHT be the right WOE for someone else.
n=1 is actually the Big Picture of Life for each one of us.
I think you missed my point...11 -
yes if you like it and it works and you make sure to take care of your micronutrients, no if you don't like it or can't do it responsibly. I lost over 70 pounds in like three months on keto and I loved it and would not be opposed to going back on it. I'm not doing it now because I'm unclear about how it would affect gaining muscle. It depends on the person, but personally, I would suggest anyone at least give it a go and see if it's for them.
so you are saying you lost almost 24lbs(23.33lbs or 7/10+ of a lb per day) a month? were you obese?(not trying to offend here). you must have had a really high deficit and low amount of calories which will cause lean mass to be lost.3 -
I did it for a month, did everything I was supposed to, but probably took a dump 5 times in the whole month. It sucked. I'm back on paleo and feel much more alive.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »N=1 is the the only N that counts in the end.
Not when one is using the results to advise what everyone else should be doing. Especially, when one does not understanding why something is or is not working...
I think we are all in full agreement on both of your points.
This week I set in on a meeting with a family and their MD and two of his staff members concerning removing one from life support. He covered a lot of n=xxxx stats during the long meeting but in the end the MD brought it back to being all about n=1.
One factor of many that came down to a n=1 was would the patient be willing to modify their eat and lifestyle in general if the high risk surgery was performed successfully?
The answer was NO so now the family as a funeral to attend. This person was aware of n=xxxxxx research but knowingly selected a thinking, eating and moving lifestyle known to lead to a premature death. Many in the family are health care professionals yet still their left and right brains were in a struggle in that meeting. At the funeral they will be saying this event for this person should have been 10-20 years down the road.
Yes we all love data where n=100,000 but in the end n=1 is on only thing that counts if one is a living organism instead of steam engine.
Weight loss and improving health markers in general will always boil down to n=1 to determine success or failure. Just because a WOE is right for one does not meant it right for anyone else in the world. Some seem to forget just because a certain WOE is wrong for them that it MIGHT be the right WOE for someone else.
n=1 is actually the Big Picture of Life for each one of us.
I think you missed my point...
And most other points. Big surprise....3 -
Keto works for me; and
Weight Watchers works for me; and
CICO works for me
I mix it up between the 3 to keep my food intake interesting with the goal being to not gain and stay in maintenance.
FWIW - I probably do CICO 80-90% of the time.2 -
Tweaking_Time wrote: »Keto works for me; and
Weight Watchers works for me; and
CICO works for me
I mix it up between the 3 to keep my food intake interesting with the goal being to not gain and stay in maintenance.
FWIW - I probably do CICO 80-90% of the time.
You do CICO 100% of the time, whether you're counting calories or not.
It doesn't matter what diet you're on, what time you're eating your meals or what macro combination they're composed of, calories are what matter when it comes to weight. Whether you're eating keto, paleo, IF, OMAD, IIFYM, whatever - if you're eating more calories than you burn, you gain weight and if you're eating less calories than you burn, you lose weight.
CICO is not a diet or "way of eating". It's an acronym simplifying the law of energy balance, which applies to all of us.15 -
Some people are better at restricting than moderating but I don't know anyone that has been "keto for life" so eat that way if you feel you must but understand thermodynamics, water/glycogen so that you aren't one of the sad keto failures that go from 20g carbs a day to 500g a day because of having restricted and then demonizing the carbs for their weight gain. There *is* a middle ground5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions