The Magic Pill - Netflix Doc
Options
Replies
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I’m saying that the publicity that keto gets combined with the exuberance that many followers express about it (on this site as well as elsewhere) means that people are not provided balanced information about what this diet would do for them that any other diet might also provide as well.
I get it, you like the diet and it has benefits for you. But many people likely do not have to go keto to achieve similar benefits, and it would be nice if that was expressed more often instead of the one sided sales pitch.
Ketomania will die down eventually once more are aware of their healthy dietary options. My guess is that it will settle in as a known and acceptable, but not obsessed about diet within a few years... Sort of like Mediterranean or vegetarian. Paleo has already died down, along with the gluten-free diet.
I think the pendulum is just swinging a little far the other way from the old low fat diet that was taught for so many years.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
Is there evidence that a ketogenic diet provides better outcomes for overweight ill people than, say, a diet that reduces refined carbohydrates but is moderate/high carbohydrate due to calories coming from vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains? My understanding is that there is some evidence some diets that fall into this category can also be helpful.
I was not talking about weight loss. That comes down to CI<CO and what diet best helps the individual achieve that.
I was referring to the improved health of those with IR from diet alone. I think the pritikin or ornish diet has been shown to be helpful in CVD, but was confounded with weight loss. I could be wrong. I think I've read about a Mediterranean diet improving conditions associated with IR, or the actual IR, but I'm not sure if that is without weight loss.
Posted just up thread was this:geneticsteacher wrote: »Interesting study, but note that sample size was small (n=44). Compares a diet high in animal protein (AP) vs. plant protein (PP).
Results
Uric acid decreased in both groups, but significantly more in the AP than the PP group. There were no significant differences in other variables, although glycated haemoglobin levels, diastolic blood pressure and fasting non‐esterified fatty acid levels improved significantly in the PP but not in the AP group. Insulin sensitivity (M‐value), C‐reactive protein and fasting glucose improved significantly in the AP but not in the PP group. Total and LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, and the urinary albumin excretion rate decreased from baseline in participants with microalbuminuria.
Conclusions
Isocaloric diets high in AP or PP allow similar improvements in metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors in people with T2DM, indicating that the differences in amino acid composition do not affect the metabolic responses to the interventions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.12901
It looks like a low carb diet provides better outcomes for IR than other diets.
https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
When it comes to PREVENTING IR, I think a diets with plenty of veggie and some fruit, with very little refined and highly processed carbs, is just fine. I think many low carb diets (low in refined and highly processed carbs) will also work fine, as will a Mediterranean diet (low in refined and highly processed carbs).
I think I'm confused by what you are claiming here.
We know that people who are ill due to excess weight will often benefit from weight loss.
So is there evidence that a ketogenic diet that results in weight loss offers more benefits to ill people than other types of diets that result in weight loss? Or are you claiming that the benefits of a ketogenic diet are available to those who don't lose any weight? If you can clarify for me what you're claiming, I think that would help because I'm still not understanding.
Why keto? Since weight loss is accomplished by a calorie deficit, what benefits are you arguing are available via this way of life that aren't available to anyone who maintains an appropriate weight while also consuming a moderate or high amount of carbohydrates from foods like vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains?
Is the argument that someone with weight related illnesses who adopts a ketogenic diet but loses no weight has a better chance of favorable health outcomes than someone who loses weight on a moderate or high carbohydrate diet?
I think that study is comparing two different types of high protein diets, so I'm not sure what it has to do with what we're discussing (if I'm misreading it, I apologize).
I think we're talking about different things.
I'm not talking about weight loss. I'm talking about the health effects of specific diets on IR related health issues. Weight loss, in almost any diet type will help IR, but without weight loss, most diets are not therapeutic. A low carb or ketogenic diet without weight loss is.
I have no idea if someone with a weight related illness would have better outcomes than someone who just followed a ketogenic diet without weight loss. Maybe. Maybe not.
Why are we talking about a situation where there is no weight loss though? Are you saying that people who are adopting keto for health reasons aren't losing weight?
And since weight loss is helpful, why wouldn't we recommend it?10 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
Maybe the recruiters only get points for how many keto converts they sign up not how many people actually have success in losing weight and becoming more healthy?6 -
From the UK NHS "Prescription items for the treatment of diabetes in primary care have increased by 80.1 per cent over the last decade". This is a serious issue. Whether you like the arguement or not UK research has proven that a crash low calorie, low carb diet with standard level of sat fats (no trans fats) can reverse type 2 diabetes.
If you are a healthy individual who burns significant calories eat what you want if you are going to burn it all up. If you sit on your butt and that butt is getting fatter AND you don't want it to - cut the processed carbs. Get what little you can get by on from fruit and veg.
Sat fats are really important for your body and the old nonsense of fat gives you heart disease is widely recognised as a lie. Trans-fats are just bad all round, a sensible level of saturated fat is important for your body.
NOTE : As we are still discovering the sub-groups of proteins and finding out their impact on the body this advise will change and each person needs to make their own choice based on how their body feels.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
Is there evidence that a ketogenic diet provides better outcomes for overweight ill people than, say, a diet that reduces refined carbohydrates but is moderate/high carbohydrate due to calories coming from vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains? My understanding is that there is some evidence some diets that fall into this category can also be helpful.
I was not talking about weight loss. That comes down to CI<CO and what diet best helps the individual achieve that.
I was referring to the improved health of those with IR from diet alone. I think the pritikin or ornish diet has been shown to be helpful in CVD, but was confounded with weight loss. I could be wrong. I think I've read about a Mediterranean diet improving conditions associated with IR, or the actual IR, but I'm not sure if that is without weight loss.
Posted just up thread was this:geneticsteacher wrote: »Interesting study, but note that sample size was small (n=44). Compares a diet high in animal protein (AP) vs. plant protein (PP).
Results
Uric acid decreased in both groups, but significantly more in the AP than the PP group. There were no significant differences in other variables, although glycated haemoglobin levels, diastolic blood pressure and fasting non‐esterified fatty acid levels improved significantly in the PP but not in the AP group. Insulin sensitivity (M‐value), C‐reactive protein and fasting glucose improved significantly in the AP but not in the PP group. Total and LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, and the urinary albumin excretion rate decreased from baseline in participants with microalbuminuria.
Conclusions
Isocaloric diets high in AP or PP allow similar improvements in metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors in people with T2DM, indicating that the differences in amino acid composition do not affect the metabolic responses to the interventions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.12901
It looks like a low carb diet provides better outcomes for IR than other diets.
https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
When it comes to PREVENTING IR, I think a diets with plenty of veggie and some fruit, with very little refined and highly processed carbs, is just fine. I think many low carb diets (low in refined and highly processed carbs) will also work fine, as will a Mediterranean diet (low in refined and highly processed carbs).
I think I'm confused by what you are claiming here.
We know that people who are ill due to excess weight will often benefit from weight loss.
So is there evidence that a ketogenic diet that results in weight loss offers more benefits to ill people than other types of diets that result in weight loss? Or are you claiming that the benefits of a ketogenic diet are available to those who don't lose any weight? If you can clarify for me what you're claiming, I think that would help because I'm still not understanding.
Why keto? Since weight loss is accomplished by a calorie deficit, what benefits are you arguing are available via this way of life that aren't available to anyone who maintains an appropriate weight while also consuming a moderate or high amount of carbohydrates from foods like vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains?
Is the argument that someone with weight related illnesses who adopts a ketogenic diet but loses no weight has a better chance of favorable health outcomes than someone who loses weight on a moderate or high carbohydrate diet?
I think that study is comparing two different types of high protein diets, so I'm not sure what it has to do with what we're discussing (if I'm misreading it, I apologize).
I think we're talking about different things.
I'm not talking about weight loss. I'm talking about the health effects of specific diets on IR related health issues. Weight loss, in almost any diet type will help IR, but without weight loss, most diets are not therapeutic. A low carb or ketogenic diet without weight loss is.
I have no idea if someone with a weight related illness would have better outcomes than someone who just followed a ketogenic diet without weight loss. Maybe. Maybe not.
Why are we talking about a situation where there is no weight loss though? Are you saying that people who are adopting keto for health reasons aren't losing weight?
If they are not eating at a deficit, then no, of course they will not lose weight.
Are you saying that those who eat keto keep losing weight until they waste away to nothing?
No, I know you aren't saying that. But you know that not everyone who eats keto is losing weight. I've eaten keto most of the last 3.5 years. I was losing weight over maybe 6 months of it.And since weight loss is helpful, why wouldn't we recommend it?
Again, not anything I have ever said.
I recommend weight loss for anyone who is overweight. I think it is very helpful to those with IR. Recommend it.
Pair weight loss with keto and that may well completely reverse someone's IR.
If they can't lose weight or keep it off, ketogenic diets are a dietary choice that will probably help treat IR regardless of weight loss. Diabetics who struggle to lose weight are not an uncommon thing, especially if they take insulin.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
6 -
TheMrWobbly wrote: »From the UK NHS "Prescription items for the treatment of diabetes in primary care have increased by 80.1 per cent over the last decade". This is a serious issue. Whether you like the arguement or not UK research has proven that a crash low calorie, low carb diet with standard level of sat fats (no trans fats) can reverse type 2 diabetes.
If you are a healthy individual who burns significant calories eat what you want if you are going to burn it all up. If you sit on your butt and that butt is getting fatter AND you don't want it to - cut the processed carbs. Get what little you can get by on from fruit and veg.
Sat fats are really important for your body and the old nonsense of fat gives you heart disease is widely recognised as a lie. Trans-fats are just bad all round, a sensible level of saturated fat is important for your body.
NOTE : As we are still discovering the sub-groups of proteins and finding out their impact on the body this advise will change and each person needs to make their own choice based on how their body feels.
I don't think saturated animal fats are a problem either. It's the form our body chooses to store most excess calories as, and I assume it does that for a reason.
Fung discusses that in his latest book, Diabetes Code. Lowering insulin and visceral fat through low carb, IF, and crash diets from bariatric surgery (which is a forced low carb diet), have all been shown to reverse IR the most effectively. He says IR is a dietary disease so treating it using diet makes the most sense. Prescriptions tend to just slow its progression just a bit.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
Is there evidence that a ketogenic diet provides better outcomes for overweight ill people than, say, a diet that reduces refined carbohydrates but is moderate/high carbohydrate due to calories coming from vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains? My understanding is that there is some evidence some diets that fall into this category can also be helpful.
I was not talking about weight loss. That comes down to CI<CO and what diet best helps the individual achieve that.
I was referring to the improved health of those with IR from diet alone. I think the pritikin or ornish diet has been shown to be helpful in CVD, but was confounded with weight loss. I could be wrong. I think I've read about a Mediterranean diet improving conditions associated with IR, or the actual IR, but I'm not sure if that is without weight loss.
Posted just up thread was this:geneticsteacher wrote: »Interesting study, but note that sample size was small (n=44). Compares a diet high in animal protein (AP) vs. plant protein (PP).
Results
Uric acid decreased in both groups, but significantly more in the AP than the PP group. There were no significant differences in other variables, although glycated haemoglobin levels, diastolic blood pressure and fasting non‐esterified fatty acid levels improved significantly in the PP but not in the AP group. Insulin sensitivity (M‐value), C‐reactive protein and fasting glucose improved significantly in the AP but not in the PP group. Total and LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, and the urinary albumin excretion rate decreased from baseline in participants with microalbuminuria.
Conclusions
Isocaloric diets high in AP or PP allow similar improvements in metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors in people with T2DM, indicating that the differences in amino acid composition do not affect the metabolic responses to the interventions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.12901
It looks like a low carb diet provides better outcomes for IR than other diets.
https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
When it comes to PREVENTING IR, I think a diets with plenty of veggie and some fruit, with very little refined and highly processed carbs, is just fine. I think many low carb diets (low in refined and highly processed carbs) will also work fine, as will a Mediterranean diet (low in refined and highly processed carbs).
I think I'm confused by what you are claiming here.
We know that people who are ill due to excess weight will often benefit from weight loss.
So is there evidence that a ketogenic diet that results in weight loss offers more benefits to ill people than other types of diets that result in weight loss? Or are you claiming that the benefits of a ketogenic diet are available to those who don't lose any weight? If you can clarify for me what you're claiming, I think that would help because I'm still not understanding.
Why keto? Since weight loss is accomplished by a calorie deficit, what benefits are you arguing are available via this way of life that aren't available to anyone who maintains an appropriate weight while also consuming a moderate or high amount of carbohydrates from foods like vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains?
Is the argument that someone with weight related illnesses who adopts a ketogenic diet but loses no weight has a better chance of favorable health outcomes than someone who loses weight on a moderate or high carbohydrate diet?
I think that study is comparing two different types of high protein diets, so I'm not sure what it has to do with what we're discussing (if I'm misreading it, I apologize).
I think we're talking about different things.
I'm not talking about weight loss. I'm talking about the health effects of specific diets on IR related health issues. Weight loss, in almost any diet type will help IR, but without weight loss, most diets are not therapeutic. A low carb or ketogenic diet without weight loss is.
I have no idea if someone with a weight related illness would have better outcomes than someone who just followed a ketogenic diet without weight loss. Maybe. Maybe not.
Why are we talking about a situation where there is no weight loss though? Are you saying that people who are adopting keto for health reasons aren't losing weight?
If they are not eating at a deficit, then no, of course they will not lose weight.
Are you saying that those who eat keto keep losing weight until they waste away to nothing?
No, I know you aren't saying that. But you know that not everyone who eats keto is losing weight. I've eaten keto most of the last 3.5 years. I was losing weight over maybe 6 months of it.And since weight loss is helpful, why wouldn't we recommend it?
Again, not anything I have ever said.
I recommend weight loss for anyone who is overweight. I think it is very helpful to those with IR. Recommend it.
Pair weight loss with keto and that may well completely reverse someone's IR.
If they can't lose weight or keep it off, ketogenic diets are a dietary choice that will probably help treat IR regardless of weight loss. Diabetics who struggle to lose weight are not an uncommon thing, especially if they take insulin.
I'm not saying people will waste away to nothing -- I'm not sure how what I wrote gave you the feeling that is what I was saying.
I'm saying if the problem is diseases caused by excess weight, why is the "magic bullet" keto (which will not create weight loss outside of a deficit) instead of losing weight (which can be done with keto, if someone finds they prefer it)?
What kind of person "can't" lose weight and only has keto as an option?11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
Maintaining a healthy weight and exercising is a way of life.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
Maintaining a healthy weight and exercising is a way of life.
Okay...7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
Maybe the recruiters only get points for how many keto converts they sign up not how many people actually have success in losing weight and becoming more healthy?
?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
Is there evidence that a ketogenic diet provides better outcomes for overweight ill people than, say, a diet that reduces refined carbohydrates but is moderate/high carbohydrate due to calories coming from vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains? My understanding is that there is some evidence some diets that fall into this category can also be helpful.
I was not talking about weight loss. That comes down to CI<CO and what diet best helps the individual achieve that.
I was referring to the improved health of those with IR from diet alone. I think the pritikin or ornish diet has been shown to be helpful in CVD, but was confounded with weight loss. I could be wrong. I think I've read about a Mediterranean diet improving conditions associated with IR, or the actual IR, but I'm not sure if that is without weight loss.
Posted just up thread was this:geneticsteacher wrote: »Interesting study, but note that sample size was small (n=44). Compares a diet high in animal protein (AP) vs. plant protein (PP).
Results
Uric acid decreased in both groups, but significantly more in the AP than the PP group. There were no significant differences in other variables, although glycated haemoglobin levels, diastolic blood pressure and fasting non‐esterified fatty acid levels improved significantly in the PP but not in the AP group. Insulin sensitivity (M‐value), C‐reactive protein and fasting glucose improved significantly in the AP but not in the PP group. Total and LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, and the urinary albumin excretion rate decreased from baseline in participants with microalbuminuria.
Conclusions
Isocaloric diets high in AP or PP allow similar improvements in metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors in people with T2DM, indicating that the differences in amino acid composition do not affect the metabolic responses to the interventions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.12901
It looks like a low carb diet provides better outcomes for IR than other diets.
https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
When it comes to PREVENTING IR, I think a diets with plenty of veggie and some fruit, with very little refined and highly processed carbs, is just fine. I think many low carb diets (low in refined and highly processed carbs) will also work fine, as will a Mediterranean diet (low in refined and highly processed carbs).
I think I'm confused by what you are claiming here.
We know that people who are ill due to excess weight will often benefit from weight loss.
So is there evidence that a ketogenic diet that results in weight loss offers more benefits to ill people than other types of diets that result in weight loss? Or are you claiming that the benefits of a ketogenic diet are available to those who don't lose any weight? If you can clarify for me what you're claiming, I think that would help because I'm still not understanding.
Why keto? Since weight loss is accomplished by a calorie deficit, what benefits are you arguing are available via this way of life that aren't available to anyone who maintains an appropriate weight while also consuming a moderate or high amount of carbohydrates from foods like vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains?
Is the argument that someone with weight related illnesses who adopts a ketogenic diet but loses no weight has a better chance of favorable health outcomes than someone who loses weight on a moderate or high carbohydrate diet?
I think that study is comparing two different types of high protein diets, so I'm not sure what it has to do with what we're discussing (if I'm misreading it, I apologize).
I think we're talking about different things.
I'm not talking about weight loss. I'm talking about the health effects of specific diets on IR related health issues. Weight loss, in almost any diet type will help IR, but without weight loss, most diets are not therapeutic. A low carb or ketogenic diet without weight loss is.
I have no idea if someone with a weight related illness would have better outcomes than someone who just followed a ketogenic diet without weight loss. Maybe. Maybe not.
Why are we talking about a situation where there is no weight loss though? Are you saying that people who are adopting keto for health reasons aren't losing weight?
If they are not eating at a deficit, then no, of course they will not lose weight.
Are you saying that those who eat keto keep losing weight until they waste away to nothing?
No, I know you aren't saying that. But you know that not everyone who eats keto is losing weight. I've eaten keto most of the last 3.5 years. I was losing weight over maybe 6 months of it.And since weight loss is helpful, why wouldn't we recommend it?
Again, not anything I have ever said.
I recommend weight loss for anyone who is overweight. I think it is very helpful to those with IR. Recommend it.
Pair weight loss with keto and that may well completely reverse someone's IR.
If they can't lose weight or keep it off, ketogenic diets are a dietary choice that will probably help treat IR regardless of weight loss. Diabetics who struggle to lose weight are not an uncommon thing, especially if they take insulin.
I'm not saying people will waste away to nothing -- I'm not sure how what I wrote gave you the feeling that is what I was saying.
I'm saying if the problem is diseases caused by excess weight, why is the "magic bullet" keto (which will not create weight loss outside of a deficit) instead of losing weight (which can be done with keto, if someone finds they prefer it)?
What kind of person "can't" lose weight and only has keto as an option?
IR is associated with excess weight. I was a normal weight when I developed IR, and then I started putting on weight.
When my weight is normal, if I don't watch my carb intake, my BG and insulin goes up again. I guess I am that person.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
Maintaining a healthy weight and exercising is a way of life.
Okay...
You don't agree?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
Is there evidence that a ketogenic diet provides better outcomes for overweight ill people than, say, a diet that reduces refined carbohydrates but is moderate/high carbohydrate due to calories coming from vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains? My understanding is that there is some evidence some diets that fall into this category can also be helpful.
I was not talking about weight loss. That comes down to CI<CO and what diet best helps the individual achieve that.
I was referring to the improved health of those with IR from diet alone. I think the pritikin or ornish diet has been shown to be helpful in CVD, but was confounded with weight loss. I could be wrong. I think I've read about a Mediterranean diet improving conditions associated with IR, or the actual IR, but I'm not sure if that is without weight loss.
Posted just up thread was this:geneticsteacher wrote: »Interesting study, but note that sample size was small (n=44). Compares a diet high in animal protein (AP) vs. plant protein (PP).
Results
Uric acid decreased in both groups, but significantly more in the AP than the PP group. There were no significant differences in other variables, although glycated haemoglobin levels, diastolic blood pressure and fasting non‐esterified fatty acid levels improved significantly in the PP but not in the AP group. Insulin sensitivity (M‐value), C‐reactive protein and fasting glucose improved significantly in the AP but not in the PP group. Total and LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, and the urinary albumin excretion rate decreased from baseline in participants with microalbuminuria.
Conclusions
Isocaloric diets high in AP or PP allow similar improvements in metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors in people with T2DM, indicating that the differences in amino acid composition do not affect the metabolic responses to the interventions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.12901
It looks like a low carb diet provides better outcomes for IR than other diets.
https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/abstract
When it comes to PREVENTING IR, I think a diets with plenty of veggie and some fruit, with very little refined and highly processed carbs, is just fine. I think many low carb diets (low in refined and highly processed carbs) will also work fine, as will a Mediterranean diet (low in refined and highly processed carbs).
I think I'm confused by what you are claiming here.
We know that people who are ill due to excess weight will often benefit from weight loss.
So is there evidence that a ketogenic diet that results in weight loss offers more benefits to ill people than other types of diets that result in weight loss? Or are you claiming that the benefits of a ketogenic diet are available to those who don't lose any weight? If you can clarify for me what you're claiming, I think that would help because I'm still not understanding.
Why keto? Since weight loss is accomplished by a calorie deficit, what benefits are you arguing are available via this way of life that aren't available to anyone who maintains an appropriate weight while also consuming a moderate or high amount of carbohydrates from foods like vegetables, fruit, beans, and whole grains?
Is the argument that someone with weight related illnesses who adopts a ketogenic diet but loses no weight has a better chance of favorable health outcomes than someone who loses weight on a moderate or high carbohydrate diet?
I think that study is comparing two different types of high protein diets, so I'm not sure what it has to do with what we're discussing (if I'm misreading it, I apologize).
I think we're talking about different things.
I'm not talking about weight loss. I'm talking about the health effects of specific diets on IR related health issues. Weight loss, in almost any diet type will help IR, but without weight loss, most diets are not therapeutic. A low carb or ketogenic diet without weight loss is.
I have no idea if someone with a weight related illness would have better outcomes than someone who just followed a ketogenic diet without weight loss. Maybe. Maybe not.
Why are we talking about a situation where there is no weight loss though? Are you saying that people who are adopting keto for health reasons aren't losing weight?
If they are not eating at a deficit, then no, of course they will not lose weight.
Are you saying that those who eat keto keep losing weight until they waste away to nothing?
No, I know you aren't saying that. But you know that not everyone who eats keto is losing weight. I've eaten keto most of the last 3.5 years. I was losing weight over maybe 6 months of it.And since weight loss is helpful, why wouldn't we recommend it?
Again, not anything I have ever said.
I recommend weight loss for anyone who is overweight. I think it is very helpful to those with IR. Recommend it.
Pair weight loss with keto and that may well completely reverse someone's IR.
If they can't lose weight or keep it off, ketogenic diets are a dietary choice that will probably help treat IR regardless of weight loss. Diabetics who struggle to lose weight are not an uncommon thing, especially if they take insulin.
I'm not saying people will waste away to nothing -- I'm not sure how what I wrote gave you the feeling that is what I was saying.
I'm saying if the problem is diseases caused by excess weight, why is the "magic bullet" keto (which will not create weight loss outside of a deficit) instead of losing weight (which can be done with keto, if someone finds they prefer it)?
What kind of person "can't" lose weight and only has keto as an option?
IR is associated with excess weight. I was a normal weight when I developed IR, and then I started putting on weight.
When my weight is normal, if I don't watch my carb intake, my BG and insulin goes up again. I guess I am that person.
I'm not very familiar with IR -- it causes weight gain regardless of how many calories are consumed?4 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
Maintaining a healthy weight and exercising is a way of life.
Okay...
You don't agree?
I agree. I said okay. I'm just not sure why you responded with that.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
Maintaining a healthy weight and exercising is a way of life.
Okay...
You don't agree?
I agree. I said okay. I'm just not sure why you responded with that.
I was responding to the statement that if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was exercise and weight loss that helped, not the way of life. I was responding with my opinion that maintaining a healthy weight and exercising *is* a way of life so I'm not sure why you would say the way of life wasn't helping with the IR.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »,janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist with no medical training what so ever...her educational background is undergrad in American Studies and a masters in Latin American studies....
Yes, she's a writer. Her book Big Fat Surprise was quite good.janejellyroll wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix doc “The Magic Pill”?
It’s a doc about the Keto diet and it’s anecdotal (it even uses the term anecdotal in the opening) health benefits. A very interesting and compelling documentary for sure. Albeit, I’m not jumping on the Keto train because of it haha.
Made me wonder who here has seen it (and what did you think)? And for those that follow a Keto diet do you do it for weight loss or for other supposed health benefits?
And the "Dr's" quoted aren't actual medical Dr's, they're authors who wrote books on how to keto. Conflict of interest much? You'll have to pry carbs out of my cold dead hands (since I'm too strong because of all the carbs I eat to be able to take them from me while I'm alive).
No. They seem to be ph.d scientists or medical doctors. There is Nina Teicholz (spelling?) who is an author, and then there is another journalist talking about the Dr Tim Noakes trial... I may have forgotten someone. Who called themselves a doctor but wasn't?
Really, the carbs they are talking about in the film were highly processed and refined carbs. People were still eating veggies and some fruits. No one advocated removing those from a diet.
People on keto typically have to limit their consumption of vegetables and fruits though and they're often avoiding or limiting even non-processed and refined carbohydrates like whole grains and beans. So if eating a higher level of carbohydrates is something that one finds useful or pleasant for satiety, reaching specific fitness goals, or enjoying how they taste, keto might not be the best fit.
That you can have some fruits and vegetables on keto doesn't change the fact that it's way too low for some of us to find pleasant, sustainable, or useful for fitness.
True. For many keto'ers they have no drop in vegetable consumption after dropping carbs because the bulk of their previous carbs were composed of breads, muffins, crackers, wraps, noodles, rice, sweets, some sweetened dairy products, etc. TBH, I think it is more the norm that someone who switches to keto is NOT reducing veggies and fruits; they may even be increasing it. Perhaps it is because those who are already eating a lot of whole veggies and fruits have less of a need for the health or appetite suppressing effects of keto since their diet is already quite healthful?
My diet is very high carbohydrate, including things like breads, pasta, and sweets, and there is still no version of keto (including vegan keto) where I would wind up eating more vegetables than I do now.
If people on keto do wind up increasing their fruit and vegetable consumption, it really makes me wonder if the health benefits reported by some have more to do with that than reducing carbohydrate consumption. Maybe morepeople should just focus on that instead of adopting a plan that requires limiting whole grains and beans, foods also associated with diet patterns that seem to promote health.
I think the veggie and fruit increases stem from following the old food pyramid with 6-12 servings of grains a day. If you cut that out, it leaves more room for veggies, meats, nuts and seeds.
If you want to create a large caloric deficit, cutting out grains and not replacing it, leaves you with a diet that is low carb, or closer to it depending on the fruits you choose.
You're vegetarian, I believe? You cut out meat. It makes sense that you eat more carbs (veggies, fruits and grains) than people who still include meat in their diets.
Increasing veggies and fruits means some other food is going to have to be reduced. I chose to limit grains because of my health issues and how my appetite works. Plus I believe they offer very little nutritional bang for my buck compared to veggies, nuts, and animal products. I cut my grains (and sugars).
My macro choice was health based. Not everybody needs to go low carb to feel their best.
I'm vegan. Personally, even without grains I wouldn't be low carbohydrate because I choose foods like vegetables, fruits, and beans. These supply more than enough carbohydrates to meet my energy and nutritional needs (I limited grains when I was losing weight because it was more challenging to fit them into my calorie goals and I didn't miss them much, I eat more now).
My point is that the low carbohydrate thing seems to be irrelevant to most people. If you can improve your health by avoiding consuming more energy than you need and eating more fruits and vegetables, why does keto need to be something that ordinary people should consider (as in argued in this film)?
Oops. I didn't realize you were vegan. So no meats, eggs, or dairy. That's fairly restrictive too. As a keto'er, I just really limit sugar and grains. The only foods I avoid 100% is gluten containing foods due to celiac disease.
I do completely believe your carbs meet your energy and most of your nutritional needs (beyond B12 supplementation).
The film doesn't argue that keto is something all people need. It is something that can technically help most people in North America though, since more people now have issues with insulin resistance (prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's; plus diseases directly affected by IR like CVD, high BP, and even some cancers) than do not. I don't think low carb is irrelevant to most. I believe the opposite - I think it could help most people. There are very few situations where trying it will hurt your health. I'm not sure that high carb diets can say the same for the majority anymore.
I feel about veganism the way (I believe) you feel about keto. While it is a restrictive diet by definition, I honestly don't miss anything (probably because I don't practice any additional restrictions like low fat, no oil, low sugar/no added sugar, or restriction of processed/refined foods). If I want something I have it, I just simply no longer desire foods of animal origin because they're ethically not acceptable to me.
I'm glad that the film doesn't recommend keto as something most people need to adopt. I was under the impression that it had a different message that it did -- that it argued for the widespread adoption of keto and spread the myth that consuming moderate or high amounts of carbohydrates was harmful in and of itself.
If you're arguing that a high carbohydrate diet will harm the majority of people -- regardless of what type of carbohydrates we're talking about -- I guess I'm going to be curious about what you're basing that statement on. Is there evidence to show this or it this a feeling that you have?
I meant it while considering the number of people whose health is negatively affected by a diet high in carbs without any changes (dietary food types or calories). Most people tend to loosely follow government guidelines and eat around 50-60% carbs, often with plenty of processed and refined foods, and most people (mainly those into middle age and beyond, especially if overweight) have IR related health issues> High carb (including a diet with a fair bit of processed and refined carbs) may not be the best thing for their health. Carbs raise glucose and insulin which is not helpful to someone whose health has been negatively impacted due to IR.
If the average higher carb person continue to eat high carb but at a deficit, they may improve their IR as they lose weight, but in that situation it is the calorie deficit and not the higher carb diet that is helping their health.
If they are eating higher carb and their diet is very heavy in whole veggies and fruits with lots of fibre and low processed and refined carbs, then it may not (probably won't) create any health issues. If one switched to that type of diet after a diet high in processed and refined carbs, they may see some improvements like you would in a very low carb diet, but because dietary glucose raises BG and insulin, it may not improve their health to the same degree. Add in weight loss and that will help too, but again that is due to a calorie deficit and not the food.
Basically, I have seen no evidence that a diet rich in veggies and some fruit, with minimally processed and refined carbs, causes IR or any health problems like you would see in a diet with fewer whole foods. I'd eat that way if my stomach, current IR and health, appetite or food preferences could do it. So much of it tastes good - it would be very similar to what I eat now but with more plant variety. But like many others, I have some health issues now that just switching to more veggies and fruits (less fat) won't be helpful enough. I passed that point.
My question was about a high carbohydrate diet (in the context of consuming the appropriate amount of energy) would -- in and of itself -- cause harm and your answer seems to be that you don't have any evidence that it will. Is that correct?
I think we all know that many people who have health issues related to excess weight will see at least some improvement in their condition if they reach a healthy weight range. If we stipulate that increasing fruits and vegetables and reducing refined carbohydrates is going to improve the quality of the average person's diet, I don't understand why keto proponents so often turn this into a focus on carbohydrates overall. If fruits and vegetables are, generally, good, then why expand that into a specific limit on carbohydrates?
Sort of.... If you had said that a high carb (in veggies and fruits, low in refined and processed carbs) low fat diet does not cause harm, I would agree. This would be more of a Pritkin or Ornish style of diet, and it has been proven to be healthy. Absolutely. I actually tried it - must have been 20 years ago - when I was hoping to improve my health. It wasn't sustainable for me though. I was very hungry, cold and tired, and it hurt my training.
I eat similar foods now, but the macros are switched from more animal products.
A high carb diet, regardless of form of food, I have very little faith in.
As to focusing on carbs in general as evil, that is a personal matter. Some like me, are so tired (BG and BP swings) and hungry when they eat a lot of carbs that carbs in general seem to work against us. For me, it did not matter if it was oatmeal, stir fried veggies, a salad or jelly beans, if I did not eat every two hours I was shaking, tired and cranky, and getting a headache. That isn't everyone, but the mid afternoon hangry tiredness is not rare.
Plus there is the fact that over half of North American adults are affected by IR. the only way to really reduce insulin and IR is to reduce your carb consumption, and perhaps keep protein to a moderate level. Exercise helps reduce IR in the skeletal muscles but does much less to help IR around the organs like the liver, brain and pancreas.
I think because carbs have hurt many keto'ers, I think by the food choices we made in the past, they don't look at them fondly. TBH, if we had eaten high carb, very limited refined and processed carbs, I highly doubt they would have developed the health issues they did and no one would vilify carbs.... But in North America, that sort of diet is far from common. Maybe in Okinawa?
That's what I mean when I say a high carbohydrate diet -- in and of itself -- doesn't cause harm. Individual food choices that cause one not to meet nutritional needs or consume more energy than one needs can cause harm. But we can see this on any type of diet, including a poorly planned ketogenic diet. So again, I'm not understanding why we're focusing on carbohydrates instead of encouraging people to meet their nutritional needs and focus on not consuming more energy than they need.
I think people focus on lower carb diets because for most adults the damage is already done. Low carb can help fix it better than some other diets could.
A diet heavy in fruits and veggies may be (probably is) preventative. BUT, it may not be therapeutic enough for someone who is already ill, which is now most middle aged and older adults, especially those who are overweight with metabolic issues.
For healthy kids and young adults, focusing on a well planned diet with plenty of fruits and veggies is certainly a good plan, just as good as a low carb plan, and way better than a higher carb diet that is heavy in refined and highly processed carbs.
My kids are not low carb. Two are moderate carb (probably 30-50%) and one is definitely high carb. I limit their processed and refined carbs more than the average kid appears to. For example, a small GF loaf of bread lasts my family of five one week and they have a noodle based meal maybe once a week. I don't mind them eating higher carbs than me because they are healthy, and their carb sources are more nutritious than refined and highly processed carby products most of the time.
For lunch, my high school kid usually takes to school beans, some meat such as pepperoni sticks or leftovers, 2 asian pears & 2 apples, or 4 oranges and a pepper, or a cantaloupe, etc.. I added cookies or flavored rice cakes to it half a dozen times as a surprise or on a special day (like a birthday). I am hopeful that the quality of all those carbs will beat the quality of carbs I usually had in my lunchboxes as a kid, which often included a few slices of bread, jam or cheezwhiz, a juice box, and banana. I doubt my lunch had much in terms of preventative qualities in terms of health. And I was a slim person until my 30s. I only became overweight for a few months after childbirth, and after I developed prediabetes...
Staying within calorie goals is important for weight management. Food choices affect health.
And to the bolded, I think that people focus on lower carb (keto in particular) diets because of the complete saturation of mainstream media as to the "magic" of this approach. Wild claims are made as to the benefits of this approach - with no attempt to suggest that many of the same benefits can be achieved simply by losing weight, by eating a balanced and nutrient dense diet, that can include carbohydrates at various levels. So many of the people who come to these boards asking about keto aren't doing so because "the damage is done" for them - it is because they heard from a friend how AH-MAY-ZING this diet is and many proponents do little to temper that enthusiasm with helping set realistic expectations.
So are you saying keto is bad because people get bad information from the media? Or just that the media does a poor job with keto?
I'm just discussing the health benefits of keto. I have no control about what people think it can do for their issues.But after this discussion I look forward to your posts acknowledging the fact that just simply eating a nutrient dense diet that includes carbs and achieves the appropriate energy balance can accomplish the same health benefits as going keto.
For treating IR related issues as well as low carb at the same appropriate caloric intake? No.
For preventing those IR issues from occurring in the first place? If by a "nutrient dense diet that includes carbs" you mean veggies and fruit and very little refined and highly processed carbs, then sure.
I do find it interesting that experts around the world that work with diabetes associations recommend diets low in saturated fats but higher in unsaturated fats, diets with fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes but low in starchy vegetables, refined carbs and processed foods. I find it interesting that they most recommend increased exercise and weight loss. Yet, on the other hand, we have keto zealots saying low carb is the only way to go. Who to believe? The experts or the zealots? I have friends who have had the impressive results of being able to ditch the insulin by following recommendations from the Australian Diabetes Association without the need for such restrictions needed for keto.
I am not saying that keto doesn't work or is inferior to recommendations normally given but I am saying it is not the only way of managing diabetes, or any other medical conditions around insulin and blood sugar levels. Different strokes for different strokes.
I never said that keto was the only way to go. I said it is the diet that best treats IR when you don't factor in weight loss or exercise.
I'll look at anything you would like to share that shows a diet that is better at treating and reversing IR than keto, without weight loss and exercise. I deal with IR so if there is a better way, I'd like to know.
I'm not understanding why we're dismissing weight loss and exercise as a helpful approach for diseases that are being triggered by people having excess weight and low activity.
I'm not dismissing weight loss and exercise as helpful - I don't believe I ever did that. But if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was the exercise and weight loss that helped the IR, and not the WOE.
Maintaining a healthy weight and exercising is a way of life.
Okay...
You don't agree?
I agree. I said okay. I'm just not sure why you responded with that.
I was responding to the statement that if one used exercise or weight loss to control IR, it was exercise and weight loss that helped, not the way of life. I was responding with my opinion that maintaining a healthy weight and exercising *is* a way of life so I'm not sure why you would say the way of life wasn't helping with the IR.[\b]
Once again, I did not say that. You are repeatedly trying to attribute statements to me that I never said, or even thought. I feel as though you are trying to trap me into saying something that you can prove wrong. Just my impression. For that reason, and because I think we've moved way past talking about Magic Pill, I'll bow out of our conversation now. I think I've made my thinking as clear as I possibly could.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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions