Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Keto diet = good or bad
Replies
-
Tells you everything you need to know:
https://youtu.be/Kzb0AsnSB-o
You do realize that is more propoganda than science? Of course plant based news is going to spin this data.12 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
3 -
Keto is the only way of eating that has worked for me. I feel so much better when I am on it. More energy, not sluggish, no bloat or inflammation, no brain fog! So many people state that you will instantly gain weight back when cycling off, but I maintained over a 20 pound loss for over a year. I'm cycling back on now to lose my last 20 pounds.
I stay under 20g net carbs a day, but I still eat fruits and veggies. I just fit them into my macros. I stick to the berry family as they are lower in fructose and I eat mostly green leafy veggies. So many people jump to the conclusion that keto is unhealthy because they see people eating bacon constantly. I do eat bacon, but it is not daily! Try sticking to healthier fats like avocado, nuts and coconut oil.4 -
SparkyJess3 wrote: »Keto is the only way of eating that has worked for me. I feel so much better when I am on it. More energy, not sluggish, no bloat or inflammation, no brain fog! So many people state that you will instantly gain weight back when cycling off, but I maintained over a 20 pound loss for over a year. I'm cycling back on now to lose my last 20 pounds.
See, this is the part I don't get. Some people report feeling so much better and all these wonderful benefits (and I honestly don't doubt them), but still don't intend to continue the WOE indefinitely. If a WOE is that beneficial, I would think people would want to eat that way forever, which in my mind is the mark of a good, sustainable diet. (Before you reply, long-term ketoers, I obviously know there are exceptions.)8 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
This is true, but I think we can eliminate broccoli, carrots, califlower, beans, apples, pears, oranges, zucchini,....... Most "trigger" foods do fall into categories. After years on the boards you see people always posting about the same handful of things that they can't control eating...and strangely, it's not bags of sugar either.15 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
I don't disagree. However her point was that many times people identify high carb items like the ones listed as trigger foods. These foods are most often both high carb and high fat. This creates a hyper palatability that can be a struggle for many people. Yet the food is identified and "high carb". Not completely accurate.12 -
Tells you everything you need to know:https://youtu.be/Kzb0AsnSB-o
Oy. From one extreme to the other. And I say this as a vegetarian who eats a lot of plant-based meals.
There is as much nonsense in this video as anything from Jason Fung.10 -
snowflake954 wrote: »It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
This is true, but I think we can eliminate broccoli, carrots, califlower, beans, apples, pears, oranges, zucchini,....... Most "trigger" foods do fall into categories. After years on the boards you see people always posting about the same handful of things that they can't control eating...and strangely, it's not bags of sugar either.
I do have a trigger food that's in the category you list: roasted chickpeas. I completely lack self control with them. They don't have to have lots of fat with them, so it wasn't about that either. In fact, my favorite brand was very low fat. It's the salt and crunch factor.
I have to be careful when I have chickpeas in the house not to give in to the temptation to roast up some for myself outside of using them for meals. It's that bad. I went through a long stretch of not eating them at all.
Saying all this, I'm making a Moroccon butternut and chickpea stew for dinner tonight, and can hardly wait for it!3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
This is true, but I think we can eliminate broccoli, carrots, califlower, beans, apples, pears, oranges, zucchini,....... Most "trigger" foods do fall into categories. After years on the boards you see people always posting about the same handful of things that they can't control eating...and strangely, it's not bags of sugar either.
I do have a trigger food that's in the category you list: roasted chickpeas. I completely lack self control with them. They don't have to have lots of fat with them, so it wasn't about that either. In fact, my favorite brand was very low fat. It's the salt and crunch factor.
I have to be careful when I have chickpeas in the house not to give in to the temptation to roast up some for myself outside of using them for meals. It's that bad. I went through a long stretch of not eating them at all.
Saying all this, I'm making a Moroccon butternut and chickpea stew for dinner tonight, and can hardly wait for it!
Ha! Please start a thread "Roasted chickpeas are the devil!". It'll be a welcome change. Perhaps there are others with the same trigger. All kidding aside, my family loves chickpeas. I make pasta and chickpeas (this is a Roman classic on fridays), rice and chickpeas, thick soups w chickpeas, and just plain chickpeas w EVOO as a side dish. I've never tried them roasted, although I've got the recipe. Will have to try.7 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
Of course they can, but I'm referring to the specific foods that people call "carbs."
Fried foods (including french fries) are fat + carbs, not just carbs. Some fried food could even be low carb.
Cake and cookies and pizza and donuts are fat + carbs -- those are often mentioned too, and referred to as "carbs." If someone loves fried rice or pasta in a cream sauce, again that's going to be high fat, but still sometimes gets referred to as "carbs."
I just find it odd.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
This is true, but I think we can eliminate broccoli, carrots, califlower, beans, apples, pears, oranges, zucchini,....... Most "trigger" foods do fall into categories. After years on the boards you see people always posting about the same handful of things that they can't control eating...and strangely, it's not bags of sugar either.
I do have a trigger food that's in the category you list: roasted chickpeas. I completely lack self control with them. They don't have to have lots of fat with them, so it wasn't about that either. In fact, my favorite brand was very low fat. It's the salt and crunch factor.
I have to be careful when I have chickpeas in the house not to give in to the temptation to roast up some for myself outside of using them for meals. It's that bad. I went through a long stretch of not eating them at all.
Saying all this, I'm making a Moroccon butternut and chickpea stew for dinner tonight, and can hardly wait for it!
I could easily eat several hundred calories of low-fat refried beans, straight from the can. Most of my trigger foods are higher in fat, but for some reason it's just hard for me to stop eating refried beans.5 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
Of course they can, but I'm referring to the specific foods that people call "carbs."
Fried foods (including french fries) are fat + carbs, not just carbs. Some fried food could even be low carb.
Cake and cookies and pizza and donuts are fat + carbs -- those are often mentioned too, and referred to as "carbs." If someone loves fried rice or pasta in a cream sauce, again that's going to be high fat, but still sometimes gets referred to as "carbs."
I just find it odd.
Yes, you don't see a lot of people "addicted" to plain pasta, or just the pizza crust 14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
This is true, but I think we can eliminate broccoli, carrots, califlower, beans, apples, pears, oranges, zucchini,....... Most "trigger" foods do fall into categories. After years on the boards you see people always posting about the same handful of things that they can't control eating...and strangely, it's not bags of sugar either.
I do have a trigger food that's in the category you list: roasted chickpeas. I completely lack self control with them. They don't have to have lots of fat with them, so it wasn't about that either. In fact, my favorite brand was very low fat. It's the salt and crunch factor.
I have to be careful when I have chickpeas in the house not to give in to the temptation to roast up some for myself outside of using them for meals. It's that bad. I went through a long stretch of not eating them at all.
Saying all this, I'm making a Moroccon butternut and chickpea stew for dinner tonight, and can hardly wait for it!
I could easily eat several hundred calories of low-fat refried beans, straight from the can. Most of my trigger foods are higher in fat, but for some reason it's just hard for me to stop eating refried beans.
Oh, those too. They're EBIL! It's that creamy texture.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
This is true, but I think we can eliminate broccoli, carrots, califlower, beans, apples, pears, oranges, zucchini,....... Most "trigger" foods do fall into categories. After years on the boards you see people always posting about the same handful of things that they can't control eating...and strangely, it's not bags of sugar either.
I do have a trigger food that's in the category you list: roasted chickpeas. I completely lack self control with them. They don't have to have lots of fat with them, so it wasn't about that either. In fact, my favorite brand was very low fat. It's the salt and crunch factor.
I have to be careful when I have chickpeas in the house not to give in to the temptation to roast up some for myself outside of using them for meals. It's that bad. I went through a long stretch of not eating them at all.
Saying all this, I'm making a Moroccon butternut and chickpea stew for dinner tonight, and can hardly wait for it!
I could easily eat several hundred calories of low-fat refried beans, straight from the can. Most of my trigger foods are higher in fat, but for some reason it's just hard for me to stop eating refried beans.
Oh, those too. They're EBIL! It's that creamy texture.
Yeah, I don't have the same problem with my homemade ones. I really enjoy them, but they don't prompt that "MUST KEEP EATING" urge.1 -
My doctor and my dietician advised me against keto BUT I also have had some health issues. I was given a lower carb plan to follow but not keto. I think anyone/everyone should consult with a doctor/dietician before doing ANY diet. I have friends doing keto tho and they are very happy and healthy but they fit the target, type 2 diabetics or suffer from PCOS.2
-
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
I don't disagree. However her point was that many times people identify high carb items like the ones listed as trigger foods. These foods are most often both high carb and high fat. This creates a hyper palatability that can be a struggle for many people. Yet the food is identified and "high carb". Not completely accurate.
Exactly. You could just as easily describe them as high fat foods but that would be the same misguided notion...3 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
Of course they can, but I'm referring to the specific foods that people call "carbs."
Fried foods (including french fries) are fat + carbs, not just carbs. Some fried food could even be low carb.
Cake and cookies and pizza and donuts are fat + carbs -- those are often mentioned too, and referred to as "carbs." If someone loves fried rice or pasta in a cream sauce, again that's going to be high fat, but still sometimes gets referred to as "carbs."
I just find it odd.
And if you add enough salt to the concoction you have the Holy Trinity...6 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
Of course they can, but I'm referring to the specific foods that people call "carbs."
Fried foods (including french fries) are fat + carbs, not just carbs. Some fried food could even be low carb.
Cake and cookies and pizza and donuts are fat + carbs -- those are often mentioned too, and referred to as "carbs." If someone loves fried rice or pasta in a cream sauce, again that's going to be high fat, but still sometimes gets referred to as "carbs."
I just find it odd.
"Hyperpalatable" is hard to spell.
Though other polysyllabic things do tend to be dietary evil, too. (Sodium bicarbonanate, dihydrogen monoxide, that sort of thing.)
Maybe need these: 7 -
It's good if it helps you stay compliant, eliminate trigger foods, helps you form better relationships with foods and helps you long term to meeting a good weight.
It sucks if you struggle with diets that are super restrictive, and enjoy and are satiated by healthy carb sources likes fruits/veggies/starches.
This! I've only been doing keto for the past 2 weeks, but it helps me with my food addiction, keeps me away from my trigger foods, and allows me to truly listen to my body and tell when i'm actually hungry or just wanting to eat to eat. It's great to be able to stop eating when i'm full and actually leave food on the plate! With my trigger foods: fried foods mostly, french fries, things like that- i always felt "compelled" to eat the rest, even if it made me so stuffed i felt sick!
It's interesting how often (as here) trigger foods are perceived as "carbs" but really are carbs + fat, often about half and half. Fried foods are inherently high fat, not inherently "carbs" although they can be also high in carbs if they are potatoes (fries are about half and half fat and carbs) or you add breading.
Anyway, that aside, I agree keto can be a satiating way to eat (as can just plain low carb or for some ignoring macros and focusing on what they feel satisfies them). Low fat also can (lots of people who can't stop eating fries or burgers have no issue with vegetables, plain potatoes, fish or leaner cuts of protein), but low carb is more likely to feel like you can still eat lots of indulgent foods on it, so it's not hard, for lots of people who do really like fat or meat.
Interestingly, plain potatoes typically score as about the highest satiety per calorie score, where's fried potatoes (particularly fries) or other combinations of potatoes plus fat (mashed potatoes with cream and butter) score much lower.
Anyway, others may feel much more indulgent on a lower fat, higher fat, but nutrient dense diet, and so find that more enjoyable and easier to stick to.
I think everyone's trigger foods can be different
Of course they can, but I'm referring to the specific foods that people call "carbs."
Fried foods (including french fries) are fat + carbs, not just carbs. Some fried food could even be low carb.
Cake and cookies and pizza and donuts are fat + carbs -- those are often mentioned too, and referred to as "carbs." If someone loves fried rice or pasta in a cream sauce, again that's going to be high fat, but still sometimes gets referred to as "carbs."
I just find it odd.
"Hyperpalatable" is hard to spell.
Though other polysyllabic things do tend to be dietary evil, too. (Sodium bicarbonanate, dihydrogen monoxide, that sort of thing.)
Maybe need these:
;-)
I know it's like Don Quixote and the windmill, but I feel I must fight this fight against fruits and veg so often not being considered "carbs" at the same time high fat foods like pizza and donuts (or french fries or fried cheese) are considered just "carbs" or even the archetypal carb.
To give credit to keto folks, actually counting carbs means they understand the whole range of foods that contain them, so aren't likely to think fruit is not a carb.
I am actually sure that there are some people who have as their trigger foods plain bread (homemade, yum), or plain white rice, or those candies that are basically just sugar, but I think (with the exception of sugary sugar, perhaps, mainly because it's easy to drink things mindlessly if you aren't paying attention to calories) that's likely much rarer than finding the most irresistible foods to be a combination of macros. (This is also why very often the WFPB people who cut fat and focus on foods that are often more plain carbs like potatoes, veg, fruit, report the same "cravings gone, no more trigger foods, never overeat" kinds of responses, even eating quite high carb diets.)
I don't have any specific foods I can't stop eating -- for me snacking is about habit, not food choice -- but foods I'd eat until they were gone when fat included cottage cheese (fat level did not matter), cheese, and popcorn (so long as it had enough oil to get the salt to stick). Also nuts sometimes. Oh, not snacking, but naan if I could dip it in curry, naan itself obviously has carbs (fat too), but that combination is clearly not driven only by carbs.
I really do think that one of the benefits of all these ways of eating that put so many common foods off limits is that you can't eat mindlessly and that when snacks are all around you you won't be able to eat them according to the rules of the diet. I suspect probably a lot of people are like me and "trigger foods" is less about the specific food as the eating habits and circumstances.8 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.6 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext3 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
The link is broken.0 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.3 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.7 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
The link is broken.
Copy and paste the whole thing into a web browser.2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
The link is broken.
Copy and paste the whole thing into a web browser.
Thank you, I will try again. It was probably me.0 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.
You know, 88.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I agree that LDL-C can be associated with some health issues. I do not think there is evidence to say that LDL is not beneficial to most people - it is essential to life. ApoB is a better indicator of possible health problems (CVD). Agreed ... These are indicators though, not causes of bad health.
I think you may be putting some words in my mouth. I discussed the impact keto usually has on lipids in response to a question. Up thread, I think I talked about some carbs tending to have a larger negative impact on health - mainly processed and refined carbs. A diet rich in veggies and whole foods is often great for people. Not all carbs are created equal just like not all fats and proteins are equally healthy or less healthy.8 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.
You know, 88.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I agree that LDL-C can be associated with some health issues. I do not think there is evidence to say that LDL is not beneficial to most people - it is essential to life. ApoB is a better indicator of possible health problems (CVD). Agreed ... These are indicators though, not causes of bad health.
I think you may be putting some words in my mouth. I discussed the impact keto usually has on lipids in response to a question. Up thread, I think I talked about some carbs tending to have a larger negative impact on health - mainly processed and refined carbs. A diet rich in veggies and whole foods is often great for people. Not all carbs are created equal just like not all fats and proteins are equally healthy or less healthy.
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You speak in generalities when in reality there is huge variation in individual response. Similarly, you see this in training as well. And realistically, if you want to speak in generalities, all diets that induce weight loss, provide those results. Unfortunately, like 99% of those low carb studies are weight loss. So you can't so much attribute the changes in metabolic markers to weight loss or diet itself.
Now if the diet helps you lose weight, than there is your benefit. But i got all those benefits with a high carb high sugsr diet with processied carbs and fats.
My triglycerides went from 220 to 40, my HDLs doubled, my A1C is like 4.2. My LDLs dropped 30 points (thanks genetics).8 -
foreverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
As a very general rule, for people without FH, triglycerides tend to drop, HDL tends to go up, and LDL usually strays about the same although ostriches particle size tends to improve when someone eats a ketogenic diet. Also, inflammatory markers usually drop, and insulin is reduced - all positives when it comes to CAD or CVD. Ymmv
Eating foods rich in cholesterol will not usually make your cholesterol worse.
But for older people, especially women, we know that higher cholesterol is associated with better health, lower CAD and All cause mortality. Lowering it may not be helpful in the long run anyways.
Not sure how spell check got ostriches from particles.
I agree that weight loss and exercise will impact cholesterol as well, but I am not sure if it is the greatest impact, or even more than diet or genetic issues.
Find me a study with weight loss that doesn't improve metabolic markers. That information is pretty common. Its why all diets with weight loss lead to the conclusion you suggest for keto.
If you think the diet makes a big difference, watch the impact as you gain weight. And if you compare body low fat and low carb diets, there is no statistical difference in weight loss or metabolic marker difference to include insulin, cvd risk or all cause mortality.
I KNOW that weight loss improves lipids. I agreed with you. I just questioned if There was evidence to back up your statement.
Keto's effects on lipids (and BG control for that matter) are seen in many without weight loss, or significant weight loss. A diet of excess calories and high fat, low carb, seems to be able to shift triglycerides and some lipids within days.
But I'm not arguing that weight loss can improve lipids. I just don't know how accurate it is to sayforeverhealthy3 wrote: »this is one topic that has so much debate. I haven't tried it because it leans toward fatty food and my triglycerides and cholesterol, don't need extra added to it. I read a lot of posting and didn't see anyone say how their blood work is turning out; for someone older, cholesterol is a concern.
in my opinion, only
Weight loss and exercise has the greatest impact on metabolic health. For all intents and purposes, its 95% of the equation. Focus on that and don't stress diet too much. Eat the one that will give you the highest rate of success.
You don't know how accurate that statement is, or you want to believe that keto alone with no weight loss is just as good?
Is there a weight loss vs keto control study? That would be the easy way to solve it.
And yes, its fully recognized the benefits of BG control in diabetic patients.... No argument there.
There is also conflicting evidence on how lipids are effected on lchf or keto. Some see large increases in LDL, which may not be beneficial. The argument on particulate size or other biomarkers hasn't exactly been accepted widely.
I think it was your opinion and not based on evidence. Weight loss and exercise are effective. Yes. That's proven. Is it the most effective? Who knows. There is no evidence either way.
I have seen eucaloric studies (and quite a few case studies) on keto and health benefits on lipids and BG. Numbers generally improve without weight loss. You are right, it isn't everybody.
I don't have the studies book marked. I might go searching later.
That information was disputed by Dom D'Agistino when Layne Norton brought it up.
Also, speaking in generalities isnt beneficial. Have enough people and you don't see significant impacts across the individual, as demonstrated below.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(18)31432-1/fulltext
I think generalities is what most want to see around here. Case studies and n=1 are usually run out on the rails.
The article you linked is on LDL-c. It went up. It's LDL-C... the jury's out on whether that is worth anything beyond those with FH or markers of metabolic syndrome. In and of itself, LDL levels mean very little.
Plus they did not look into LDL-P or particle size, or HDL, nor did they look at those with metabolic syndrome, which is the group most impacted, as I mentioned up thread. In healthy people, whose lipids don't need improving, I imagine improvements would be small or none. If it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply here.
I don't think the jury is out on LDL but they recognize that its not beneficial for all people. Overall, its a good indicator for about 80%. Unfortunately, i am one of those 20% because of genetics. There is some evidence that apolipoprotein B provides a better indication than LDL.
The main point, you keep talking about carbs having a big impact but i haven't seen what you are alluding to. Even in high sugar diets (like 100gs) if weight loss is associated than metabolic markers improve. And if you looked at KH studies, that was demonstrated. There wasn't even a statistical difference between the low fat high sugar groups and the keto group.
You know, 88.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I agree that LDL-C can be associated with some health issues. I do not think there is evidence to say that LDL is not beneficial to most people - it is essential to life. ApoB is a better indicator of possible health problems (CVD). Agreed ... These are indicators though, not causes of bad health.
I think you may be putting some words in my mouth. I discussed the impact keto usually has on lipids in response to a question. Up thread, I think I talked about some carbs tending to have a larger negative impact on health - mainly processed and refined carbs. A diet rich in veggies and whole foods is often great for people. Not all carbs are created equal just like not all fats and proteins are equally healthy or less healthy.
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You speak in generalities when in reality there is huge variation in individual response. Similarly, you see this in training as well. And realistically, if you want to speak in generalities, all diets that induce weight loss, provide those results. Unfortunately, like 99% of those low carb studies are weight loss. So you can't so much attribute the changes in metabolic markers to weight loss or diet itself.
Now if the diet helps you lose weight, than there is your benefit. But i got all those benefits with a high carb high sugsr diet with processied carbs and fats.
My triglycerides went from 220 to 40, my HDLs doubled, my A1C is like 4.2. My LDLs dropped 30 points (thanks genetics).
I realize there is a wide response to diets. This is why generalities are used. I can't say that those born on a Tuesday under a full moon will have a good response, but those born within ear shot of a dog barking won't. All we can say is most, or a few or list a few actual case studies or results.
Yes, most (not 99% - that is opinion) of low carb studies involve weight loss, possibly because people tend to lose weight when eating low carb. There are some that don't, and they show health improvement, mainly for those with metabolic syndrome, when using the diet compared to not.
No one is arguing that weight loss and exercise will do the same thing for most people. You can stop repeating this, it is agreed upon. But it is not an adequate argument to prove that lchf is the same as any diet... And yes, we are aware that there are other healthy diets out there that will do the same thing. I have not proclaimed keto as king if the castle, it is just a healthy diet for many, beyond weight loss effects.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions