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

1111214161744

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,373 MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,373 MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,958 Member
    Roadie2000 wrote: »
    The people that do it swear by it and think it's the best thing ever and love to tell you how great it is and to justify everything that might be wrong with it. It is good for some people but not for everybody, like a lot of things.

    This sums it up fairly well...
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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 fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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 fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.

    It was simplified language to refer to a lipid panel.
    The statement was not about LDL-c not being a lipid.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. :D

    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 say
    psuLemon 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 fail to see what part of this statement has anything to do with LDL-c NOT being a lipid.

    It was simplified language to refer to a lipid panel.
    The statement was not about LDL-c not being a lipid.

    It was stated that lipids are affected by ketosis.
    Instead of countering that claim, you've moved on to skepticism of a particular lipid as diagnostic.
    By moving the goal post, it seems you're conceding the point: ketosis has an impact on lipids compared to other isocaloric diets.
This discussion has been closed.