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

1101113151629

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo 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??? :s

    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.

    It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.
  • Basic concepts I think about regarding Keto:
    What do humans store extra energy as?
    If you are used to using that form wouldn’t those stores be easier to tap?
    What is the big difference between modern man’s diet (surviving-minus heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.- for hundreds of years) and our ancestral diet (with man surviving and thriving for thousands of years)?
    After research what makes the most sense?
    Does it do good things for me personally?



  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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??? :s

    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.

    It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.

    You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm

    "The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."

    I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.

    I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.

    They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited January 2019
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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??? :s

    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.

    It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.

    You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm

    "The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."

    I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.

    I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.

    They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.

    Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.
  • zeejane03
    zeejane03 Posts: 993 Member
    Is there a Keto support group on MFP anywhere? I need ideas for snacks that won't undo my efforts.

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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??? :s

    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.

    It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.

    You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm

    "The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."

    I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.

    I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.

    They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.

    Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.

    First Na·tionDictionary result for First Nation
    noun
    plural noun: First Nations
    any of the groups of indigenous peoples of Canada officially recognized as an administrative unit by the federal government or functioning as such without official status. The term is generally understood to exclude the Inuit and Metis.
    "the Siksika First Nation in Alberta"
    Im part mohawk which is considered first nation, Im also algonquin and Iroquois(among other things lol) and the fat storing gene Im assuming its meaning they dont store a lot of fat? if so it missed me lol

    also this https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited January 2019
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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??? :s

    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.

    It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.

    You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm

    "The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."

    I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.

    I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.

    They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.

    Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.

    First Na·tionDictionary result for First Nation
    noun
    plural noun: First Nations
    any of the groups of indigenous peoples of Canada officially recognized as an administrative unit by the federal government or functioning as such without official status. The term is generally understood to exclude the Inuit and Metis.
    "the Siksika First Nation in Alberta"
    Im part mohawk which is considered first nation, Im also algonquin and Iroquois(among other things lol) and the fat storing gene Im assuming its meaning they dont store a lot of fat? if so it missed me lol

    also this https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal

    Yeah, I get that now. For some reason I'd always just assumed that "first nations" was the Canadian way of referring politely to all Native American populations. I didn't know it was supposed to be Canada-specific, etc.

    Re: fat storing gene, you mean the thrifty gene concept? It is supposed to mean that in certain more recently hunter-gatherer populations there's an adaptation to help put on fat more easily for times of famine, and it could be why many of those populations seem especially susceptible to T2D.

    It seems to be pretty criticized/subject to correction, and the hypothesis has been modified some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrifty_gene_hypothesis
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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??? :s

    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.

    It is interesting. I've read about this before. I wonder if it applies to first nations and mongols where the temps aren't as low - the grasslands - where they may get a bit more plant but still live as carnivores for part of the year.

    You cannot generalize about Native American diets. For example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104434.htm

    "The research, which appears in the latest edition of the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that the prehistoric hunter-gatherer civilizations of the Southwest lived on a diet very high in fiber, very low in fat and dominated by foods extremely low on the glycemic index, a measure of effects food has on blood sugar levels. This diet, researchers said, could have been sufficient to give rise to the fat-storing "thrifty genes."

    I mentioned first nations living on the grasslands- that's Canada's prairies. They all are very similarly.

    I won't argue that native Americans ate differently than the grassland first nations peoples. Really, the SW USA is almost as far from them as the Inuit are.

    They may have a thrifty gene up here too. Who knows.

    Ah, I skimmed past the reference to "the grasslands" and thought "first nations" was Canadian for Native Americans generally.

    First Na·tionDictionary result for First Nation
    noun
    plural noun: First Nations
    any of the groups of indigenous peoples of Canada officially recognized as an administrative unit by the federal government or functioning as such without official status. The term is generally understood to exclude the Inuit and Metis.
    "the Siksika First Nation in Alberta"
    Im part mohawk which is considered first nation, Im also algonquin and Iroquois(among other things lol) and the fat storing gene Im assuming its meaning they dont store a lot of fat? if so it missed me lol

    also this https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal

    Yeah, I get that now. For some reason I'd always just assumed that "first nations" was the Canadian way of referring politely to all Native American populations. I didn't know it was supposed to be Canada-specific, etc.

    Re: fat storing gene, you mean the thrifty gene concept? It is supposed to mean that in certain more recently hunter-gatherer populations there's an adaptation to help put on fat more easily for times of famine, and it could be why many of those populations seem especially susceptible to T2D.

    It seems to be pretty criticized/subject to correction, and the hypothesis has been modified some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrifty_gene_hypothesis

    I found this because I dont trust wikipedia as a valid source(as it can be edited) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723682/
  • Pjay70
    Pjay70 Posts: 2 Member
    I read many but not all of the comments. Many mention Ketoas being no carbs. That is not correct. Keto is 35 total carbs /20 net carbs. Whether it is good or bad depends on what research you read.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,009 Member
    Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.

    Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!

    My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.

    In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.

    So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.

    Before you knock it, you should do some research.

    Out of curiosity, what are the high carb foods that cause you and your family so many problems?
  • Wow... I’m so happy for you. You have blessed your whole family! You actually sound a lot like me. I too was in constant pain and bad health. I could barely walk because of the pain in both knees and Lowe back. Just like my stomach problems, the doctors couldn’t find a reason for the pain. I felt so old. Now, I run around and feel wonderful. I rejoice every single day now. I wish you continued success!!
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    zeejane03 wrote: »
    Wow, so much misinformation about this way of eating.. Everyone’s giving their opinion but they don’t really know what they’re talking about.

    Keto is a very personalized way of eating, so it does look different for different people. However, there are some principles that must be understood to be successful. Unfortunately, most who attempt it, do so without the research. It is NOT a diet of deprivation!!

    My family is celebrating our 1-year “ketoversary” today and it has been the best year. I’ve lost 83 lbs. All together (7 of us) my family has lost over 300 lbs. so far. We all eat differently - we go by what our body needs. It is the easiest thing I’ve ever done. The only hard part was overcoming my sugar addiction (took 2 weeks cold turkey) and “unlearning” all the garbage nutritional info I’ve been taught. No calorie tracking. No deprivation. Incredible health.

    In fact, what made it so easy for us to follow was how good we felt, so quickly! All of our numbers improved and my husband was off his blood pressure and cholesterol meds within 2 months. My 16-year-old son’s allergies are gone (unless he consumes too many carbs). My horrible acid reflux and stomach problems were gone within two weeks. I was a very old 56 year old and now I’m a very young 57 year old. Eating Keto gave me the energy to get up and go. I got a very active job after two months and now I am more energetic than the twenty-somethings I work with. In fact, I watch them move around sluggishly, complaining about how they feel, saying they could never give up their carbs.

    So many of you say that you prefer calories in/calories out... but people can’t maintain that... they just slow down their metabolism. I’ve been effortlessly maintaining my weight loss since October and I feel like I eat just what I want.

    Before you knock it, you should do some research.

    You've only been maintaining since October, so a few months. Most people regain their losses within two years, so get back with us in a few years and then we'll talk.

    I'm coming up on 6 years of maintenance (being mindful of calories in/calories out), and I know the odds are still stacked against me, since I have 40+ years of maintenance ahead of me.

    You're still in the honeymoon phase of weight loss. Maintenance is for 20, 30, 40+ years and most people fail at it, regardless of what plan they're following/what plan they used to lose weight.

    Exactly. I've been maintaining since 2015, but I still feel like it's relatively early days. I want to be at a healthy weight for the rest of my life, this is a game where the decades count . . . not the months.

    QFT. You know, this is one of the reasons I actually love going to the dentist. My hygienist has maintained a 75 pound loss for 30 years, including through two pregnancies. She watched my lose my weight, and enjoys our discussions as much as I do. I'm so thankful to her for all of her insights.

    Wow, that's an amazing success story!
This discussion has been closed.