Keto diet = good or bad

GaleHawkins wrote: »

J72FIT wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.

Out of curiosity, how did you track that?

That was covered 3 posts up.

4 posts up you said that you took no stock in calories, so it makes me wonder why you would care to track them.

J72FIT wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

J72FIT wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.

Out of curiosity, how did you track that?

That was covered 3 posts up.

I don't see it. Could you repost it for me? Thanks.

Sorry that was my bad it is 5 posts back. Now you see why I do not count and track calories any longer.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

RAinWA wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

trailjunkey wrote: »

I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.

...I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.

Care to share this amazing study?

https://everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/diet/study-shows-how-low-carb-diets-may-lead-weight-loss/

That was a twenty-week study and the article itself discloses that other studies have shown different results. Why would this particular study make you "sure" that you're burning more calories while it's obviously still not established and replicated?

As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.

While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.

https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/

If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?

Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?

Who puts stock in any internet forum post?

As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.

I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.

It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.

I'm not asking about a forum post. I'm asking about the study. The study that you cited in support of your claim that you were "sure" that you were burning additional calories due to your ketogenic diet. You are now saying that isn't true.

If what you're saying is that you don't bother to analyze claims when they mirror your personal experience . . . well, I appreciate your honesty but I think it makes you a terrible source of information. When a claim mirrors our personal experience or beliefs, that's actually a pretty good reason to question it. At the very least, consider not using information you haven't evaluated to try to support your claims. Just admit you believe it due to your personal experience. Saying you were "sure" due to the study was a lie.

I was sure about that I was burning additional calories due to my ketogenic diet before that study was reported but it is nice to know the report backs up my earlier personal experience.
Do you agree the ketogenic diet can be a lifesaver for some people?

Odd because even the study doesn't have the methodology to support a strong conclusion that a ketogenic dieter is burning more calories.
Frankly, when dealing with your self as on subject, you have as exactly as much evidence that your McDonald's coffee was causing the change in calories - even assuming there was a change for arguendo - because you have no way to separate two causes when working with one body.

I'm sure ketogenic can be rather helpful for people that have epilepsy with no other manageable treatment options - something that seems to be diminishing with advances in pharmacology. I'm currently unaware of any study that strongly shows any other health benefit of keto that there isn't also evidence for being simple the result of weight loss.

J72FIT wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

J72FIT wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.

Out of curiosity, how did you track that?

That was covered 3 posts up.

I don't see it. Could you repost it for me? Thanks.

It states he didn't track calories except maybe a day or two and magically made up these values. And since my last discussion that number has grown by 1000 calories.

So no tracking, methods or actual basis for information except winging it.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

RAinWA wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

trailjunkey wrote: »

I started Keto and intermittent fasting in October after using the traditional lower caloric diet with ADA macros for most of my weight loss attempts. I am down 49 pounds total but only about 27 of that is while on Keto. Better than all of that my A1C is no longer Pre-Diabetic. My Cholesterol is back to normal range. My Psoriasis has gone away. I no longer crave carbs and I now feel satisfied after my meals. Fifty pounds still to go to my target weight but it is working for me. My doctor is thrilled. I eat more vegetables now than I ever have. I don't eat alot of fruits right now but will in the future probably.

...I am sure I naturally burn more calories before factoring in how Keto is reported to increase calorie burn by 250 calories daily in some study.

Care to share this amazing study?

https://everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/diet/study-shows-how-low-carb-diets-may-lead-weight-loss/

That was a twenty-week study and the article itself discloses that other studies have shown different results. Why would this particular study make you "sure" that you're burning more calories while it's obviously still not established and replicated?

As you know I put no stock into this particular or other studies about calories because I put no stock into calories in general when it comes to health in general. Today we really do not know how the human body uses energy or why two people with seemingly equal CICO numbers yet they maintain, gain or lose at different rates. I am convinced calories are just a very small fraction of the weight/health equation.

While I am not concerned about calories because I have personally found no reason to do so I am interested to learn more how quantum mechanics/physics impacts human health and the difference between Eastern and Western Medicine modes and results.

https://quantumuniversity.com/integrative-medicine/quantum-physics-integrative-medicine/

If you put no stock in the study, why did you post it in response to the question about how you were sure you were "naturally" burning more calories?

Why would a study that you put no stock in make you sure that was happening?

Who puts stock in any internet forum post?

As for that study goes I have not drilled down on their supporting docs to check any validity concerns because it mirrors my personal Keto experience.

I know a full 100% that keto is working to give me back my health after being on it for over 1500 days now but I can not tell you why it is working like nothing I tried in the first 63 years of my life. I know before when I lost weight by going hungry I was cold all of the time but for the past 1500 days I do not freeze to death all the time like before when I dropped a lot of weight by just going hungry. Well I never lost a lot of weight eating 3000+ calories daily either. Being able to maintain the weight loss and still eating the same 3000+ calorie WOE was a shock to me based off of posts from others.

It seems in my case keto enables my brain to get back in charge of my weight so all I have to be concerned with is the types of calories that I eat. No math or tracking being required makes Keto easy to do in my case.

I'm not asking about a forum post. I'm asking about the study. The study that you cited in support of your claim that you were "sure" that you were burning additional calories due to your ketogenic diet. You are now saying that isn't true.

If what you're saying is that you don't bother to analyze claims when they mirror your personal experience . . . well, I appreciate your honesty but I think it makes you a terrible source of information. When a claim mirrors our personal experience or beliefs, that's actually a pretty good reason to question it. At the very least, consider not using information you haven't evaluated to try to support your claims. Just admit you believe it due to your personal experience. Saying you were "sure" due to the study was a lie.

I was sure about that I was burning additional calories due to my ketogenic diet before that study was reported but it is nice to know the report backs up my earlier personal experience.
Do you agree the ketogenic diet can be a lifesaver for some people?

Penicillin can be a lifesaver for some people, and it could be life threatening for others. It would be irresponsible for a doctor to prescribe it to everyone without looking at facts.

You fail to take facts into account in almost every one of your arguments. You've told your story on here countless times, yet you fail to recognize the fact that your health may have improved because of your weight loss, and not necessarily because of Keto. Keto may have made it easier for you to lose weight because it helped you adhere to a caloric deficit, but lets be clear about the fact that the reason you lost weight was because you had a caloric deficit and not because the magic Keto unicorn made your body suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics.

As Jane has pointed out, you can't site a study to back up your argument, then admit that you hadn't read or knew any specific details about that study. You cherry pick bits and pieces of information without looking at all of the facts and that is why you bring little value to any debate regardless of your n=1 experience. For someone who has admitted you don't track calories, I find it interesting that you know exactly how many calories you are consuming. Its also interesting how that number has changed over time.

Its great that your health has improved Gale, and you can go ahead and attribute it all to Keto if you like, but you aren't helping anyone by spreading misinformation on these forums. The problem is, some people do read these forums looking for legitimate advice, and you are not providing any value to these people because the overwhelming majority of what you post is not at all backed by science. You aren't interested in the facts though, even when they are blatantly presented to you because you are so blindly convinced you are correct.

@wmd1979 the subject is the Keto diet good or bad. Do you think the Keto diet is good or bad?

I am of the position the Keto Way Of Eating is very good for me based on my four year n=1 because that is the only thing that counts in the end because no one knows how they are going to respond to a new WOE without doing a n=1. In humans there are not true double blind placebo controlled keto studies that the pros mention.

As you know I never posted a link to back up my argument but only to fill the question of another poster asking how to find more info on that subject that I mentioned in another post. I do not post misinformation but what I would testify to on a witness stand.

You post you think the laws of physics governs human weight. My training leads me to see human biology more of the controlling factor having major in Biology and a minor in Physics in the process of earning my OD degree. You can count your calories and I will use biology to manage my hormones since in my case it negates any reason to count calories long term. Being 68 this automated weight loss and maintenance program works well as you know I can not count very well.

Keep in mind I did not start Keto to lose weight because I had taken weight loss off of my lists of health goals. My one and only goal was pain management which was very successful starting in mid Oct 2014. The many other positive health side effects are just bonuses that I appreciate.

Weight loss may be a key factor in reversing some many of my long term health issues like the Ankylosing Spondylitis regression but the pain manage started about a month before I lost my first pound. Keto has been the only WOE that lead to successful weight loss and maintaining the loss since Oct 2014. After trying over and over to lose weight successfully by cutting calories and going hungry only to then see a 100%+ regains over and over I swore off of counting calories prior to Google leading me to MFP for Keto info in late 2014.

The founder of MFP stated he counted calories to get a handle on understanding how much he was eating prior to a wedding then after learning that info he stopped counting as I have done as well. Keto somehow seems to resolve my years of disordered eating so now my body does the calorie counting for me and removes my desire to keep eating when I get stuffed unlike when I was on a High Carb High Fat WOE.

Do you know of any science that states Keto diet is good? Do you know of any science that states the Keto diet is bad? If you find some research stating it is good and other that states it is bad there is only one thing a true scientist would consider doing if interested in the real truth and that would be do a n=1 study.

Over the holidays I went higher carb. I followed the same WOE of eating no foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains but I did start eating over 50 grams of carbs from oranges and red Quinoa.

First my blood pressure started hitting 140 on the high side and my headaches started to return. Worse to me was my lower extremities started to swell again with pitting edema returning after have been gone for the past 4 years.

A couple weeks later after starting to keep the daily carbs down to 50 grams the above issues have resolved. My retesting of eating more carbs has confirmed my n=1 back in Oct 2014 results are still valid.

I hope you and other readers with a real interest in looking at the Keto WOE see why I say Keto is the best WOE I have every eaten successfully to both lose weight and maintain that loss for years without counting or going hungry ever.

Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???

Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?

Sloth2016 wrote: »

Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???

Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?

This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.

277to161 wrote: »

That was pretty harsh. I will respectfully tell you that you are hurting people by bashing the guy and his experience. I used to come to this site and stopped because of all the ignorant opinions. I see it’s many of the same old people with the same old tired opinions. All diets work and all diets fail as soon as you go back to your old ways. You can’t apply the laws of thermodynamics to people. That’s just plain silly. If arguments to follow the recommended nutritional guidelines were legitimate there would not be an obesity rate of over 30%. The keto health benefits are huge and not just from weight loss. In addition to this, there are countless stories of people losing tons of weight and keeping it off. Like Gale. Simply going into maintenance mode and eating low carb, not tracking calories, or food. You just learn how to eat. And it’s not all meat as many assume. Combine a ketosis diet with some intermittent fasting and you have the holy grail of weight loss.

You do realize that you're in the Debate section of the forums?

Also, your statement about all diets failing as soon as you go back to your old ways also applies to those doing Keto. Spend any time on the forums and you'll see the people who have tried it and ended up dropping it/re-gaining their lost weight. Keto is not a sustainable woe for a lot of people, same as all the other plans out there.

Long term weight loss success is dismal across the board-there is no 'one way' that's been proven any better than another. That includes those who do keto/low carb.

277to161 wrote: »

That was pretty harsh. I will respectfully tell you that you are hurting people by bashing the guy and his experience. I used to come to this site and stopped because of all the ignorant opinions. I see it’s many of the same old people with the same old tired opinions. All diets work and all diets fail as soon as you go back to your old ways. You can’t apply the laws of thermodynamics to people. That’s just plain silly. If arguments to follow the recommended nutritional guidelines were legitimate there would not be an obesity rate of over 30%. The keto health benefits are huge and not just from weight loss. In addition to this, there are countless stories of people losing tons of weight and keeping it off. Like Gale. Simply going into maintenance mode and eating low carb, not tracking calories, or food. You just learn how to eat. And it’s not all meat as many assume. Combine a ketosis diet with some intermittent fasting and you have the holy grail of weight loss.

Health Benefits of Keto:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/health

Beginners guide to Keto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w9dfYUD6-E
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/keto

Understanding Keto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dan8qtgQRi8

All diets work, but tracking energy consumed relative to energy used doesn't work? I mean . . . .

277to161 wrote: »

Sloth2016 wrote: »

Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???

Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?

This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.

That may work for you, but it certainly isn't universal. But what you are discussion is the manipulation of the hormone called ghrelin. On keto, I was always hungry. Some of us, just need a lot of food volume. Something you can't achieve doing keto.

nvmomketo wrote: »

magnusthenerd wrote: »

277to161 wrote: »

Sloth2016 wrote: »

Seems counterintuitive. Difficult for me to believe that over millions of years, evolution provided humans with the ketogenic "safety valve" - enabling us to survive even in a paucity of food resources (i.e., no plant based food available); yet paradoxically, the "safety valve" is so inefficient that the human machine requires substantially greater number of calories to keep going when in the ketogenic state???

Surely, such a poorly equipped creature would have died out long ago, right?

This is a perfect example of people not understanding keto. A balanced keto plan includes plenty of healthy plant-based foods. Replacing glucose with ketones as fuel, one needs to eat much less and can go much longer without food. If you are doing it right you eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full. After you are completely adapted the need to eat every few hours is gone.

Granting that as true for arguendo, that would have the evolutionary implication that keto has some strong disadvantage that selects against being in it. Saving energy can get pretty cut-throat, having an economy mode that isn't killing the acceleration as the default seems odd.
There's even evidence in Arctic people for a selection sweep against ketosis - yes, despite all the talk of Inuit diets by keto fans, Inuit rarely are in ketosis. Most of them have a gene SNP that encourages their body to stay out of ketosis, and this trait is highly retained in the population even though it looks like it tends to increase infant mortality rates.

Do you know if the mongols had that too? I'm curious.

I'm only aware of the selection sweep for the particular SNP existing for Arctic populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225582/

In a recent genome-wide SNP genotype study of 200 Siberian individuals,3 the strongest signals of positive selection detected by tests for haplotype homozygosity and allele differentiation mapped to a 3 Mb region containing 79 protein-coding genes at chr11: 66–69 Mb in Northeast Siberian populations. Because of the limited density of markers in the SNP data, it was impossible to pinpoint the causative locus for the selection signal. Here, we sequenced the genomes of 25 unrelated individuals from the Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak populations (Figure S1, available online) with a mean coverage of >40× by using the Complete Genomics platform (Tables S1A and S1B).

It seems that it is prevalent in their neighbors. I would think it reasonable for it to exist in populations living in the more frozen ranges of the Mongol population, but I don't have the empirical evidence to make a claim.