Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Keto diet= good or bad

1235714

Replies

  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 844Member Member Posts: 844Member Member
    ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html

    ".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].

    Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:

    "Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."

    That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."

    So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,629Member Member Posts: 7,629Member Member
    ketotic.org/2017/11/does-ketogenic-diet-confer-benefits-of.html

    ".....While there are studies that support the benefit of fibre in IBD, there are others showing harm. The evidence is mixed enough to be called weak and inconclusive [Kap2016].

    Anecdotes such as the "Crohn's Carnivore" suggest a different solution might hold for some:

    "Eight years ago I decided to eat nothing but meat for a year. Now I have a perfectly normal colon. If those two events are indeed correlated, and someone could figure out exactly how, a whole lot of people would be able to find relief from a terrible disease."

    That experience runs both with and possibly against current dietary guidelines for IBD....."

    So this person no longer needs the carnivore diet?

    I had the same question. If the carnivore fixes the gut microbiota ratio perhaps not? If you find the answer please post a link. While not the same thing my 40 years of life defining IBS cleared up about six months after I cut out all foods containing added sugars and or any form of grain back in 2014 and IBS still has not returned for even one day since it went bye bye. I expect now it was due to my WOE being positive for my gut microbiota ratio.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 844Member Member Posts: 844Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ekbrwz wrote: »
    For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.

    Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.

    I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.

    There are some errors in this.

    Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.

    There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.

    Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.

    I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
    Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
    Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ekbrwz wrote: »
    For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.

    Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.

    I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.

    There are some errors in this.

    Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.

    There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.

    Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.

    I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
    Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
    Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.

    Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.

    Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.

    They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 844Member Member Posts: 844Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ekbrwz wrote: »
    For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.

    Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.

    I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.

    There are some errors in this.

    Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.

    There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.

    Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.

    Another way to look at it, is eating excessive amounts of fat and the elimination of many healthy and beneficial foods sustainable?

    Dietary carbs are non essential but glucose is essential to life. In fact, its so important that our bodies can make it from proteins and fats.

    Trying to make a big deal that dietary carbs are non essential but not pointing out that our bodies only need 11g of alpha linolenic acid, is a bit dishonest. Protein requirements are roughly 30-40g to meet minimal requirements (depends on the amino acid composition). So honestly, if you want to make an argument, than a protein based diet is the biggest benefit.

    In the end, the argument of essential vs non essential is pedantic and should never be part of a discussion. What is more important is what is optimal for the individual. And the health benefits and sustainability of carbs is what has helped me maintain my 50lb loss for 9 years.

    Some people may eat excessive amounts of fat while keto but implying that is required, or even how those who do it long term, is laughable. My only added fats are cream in my coffee and cheese.

    Also, ketosis does not require the elimination of any healthy foods.

    Carbs are non-essential. Our body makes enough. When you cut back on the amount of carbs you eat, you body even down regulated the amount of glucose it uses. Implying one needs to eats carbs is dishonest... Like saying we need to eat blood in order to have blood or we need to eat brains in order to have brains. I never said eating carbs was bad - I said it was non-essential.

    A ketogenic need only be low in carbs to be ketogenic. I'm all for moderate to moderately high protein and getting enough fat without going excessive.

    Avoiding most carbs, and the effects it has on my health, is what allowed me to lose 40lbs and maintain that for a number of years. No one diet fits all.

    I've read claims that by ketoers that one can't have too high of protein or they'll be knocked out of ketosis, so I don't know about carbohydrates being low being the only requirement.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ekbrwz wrote: »
    For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.

    Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.

    I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.

    There are some errors in this.

    Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.

    There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.

    Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.

    I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
    Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
    Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.

    Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.

    Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.

    They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.

    Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
    See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
    An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.

    As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).

    I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.

    I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.

    I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
This discussion has been closed.