Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Keto diet= good or bad
Replies
-
@nvketomom
Just in case you forgot the conversation from a few weeks ago.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.12 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.
I don't think all carnivores are uber particular about classifying their diets. Most eat what they can tolerate with an eye to better health. Most would eat plants (autotrophs) if they could without negative effects. As I said, I know some who include fungi since they don't seem to pose the same health problems that many plant foods do for those people.
And you are right. I mixed myself up about DASH. Sorry. There was one 4-week trial when it was first recommend about 20 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509411/ Since then there has been around twenty RCTs.
I even found this one which was the more traditional DASH diet compared to a high fat DASH diet, and was just as effective at lowering BP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718414
"CONCLUSIONS:
The HF-DASH diet lowered blood pressure to the same extent as the DASH diet but also reduced plasma triglyceride and VLDL concentrations without significantly increasing LDL cholesterol. "
I mainly dislike guidelines because very little is actually proven. We know transfats are bad. We know lots of sugar or highly processed and refined foods in a diet is not healthy. We know some basic macronutrient needs in protein and fats. Beyond that, there is debate.7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »And in the all animal vs a diet that includes grains and vegetables, don’t forget to make sure to mention that the all animal diet would need to include organ meats in order to get all the nutrients available in plants...
No, they would not need to eat organ meat. Organ meat is definitely very nutritious but muscle meat and marrow have all those nutrients that are needed.
But doesn't that suggest that good planning and supplementation is needed to ensure that a diet of only animal products meets all nutritional guidelines, just like you suggested that a vegetarian diet would?
Meat meets our nutritional needs. The nutritional guidelines is another matter.
In all honesty, some supplement with salt, especially early on. Others don't. I can't think of any nutrient that ends up being deficient if skipping plants. I know people worry about vitamin C but I have found just one case of scurvy, and I'm not sure it was a 100% meat diet.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.
I don't think all carnivores are uber particular about classifying their diets. Most eat what they can tolerate with an eye to better health. Most would eat plants (autotrophs) if they could without negative effects. As I said, I know some who include fungi since they don't seem to pose the same health problems that many plant foods do for those people.
And you are right. I mixed myself up about DASH. Sorry. There was one 4-week trial when it was first recommend about 20 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509411/ Since then there has been around twenty RCTs.
I even found this one which was the more traditional DASH diet compared to a high fat DASH diet, and was just as effective at lowering BP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718414
"CONCLUSIONS:
The HF-DASH diet lowered blood pressure to the same extent as the DASH diet but also reduced plasma triglyceride and VLDL concentrations without significantly increasing LDL cholesterol. "
I mainly dislike guidelines because very little is actually proven. We know transfats are bad. We know lots of sugar or highly processed and refined foods in a diet is not healthy. We know some basic macronutrient needs in protein and fats. Beyond that, there is debate.
Guidelines are based on studies that show correlation. There is evidence to support them. But just because they don't fit your situation or personal preference doesn't make them disproved or worthless. The biggest issue with them is the individual response may not align to those specific guidelines. But at the very least, there should be a place to start.14 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.
I don't think all carnivores are uber particular about classifying their diets. Most eat what they can tolerate with an eye to better health. Most would eat plants (autotrophs) if they could without negative effects. As I said, I know some who include fungi since they don't seem to pose the same health problems that many plant foods do for those people.
And you are right. I mixed myself up about DASH. Sorry. There was one 4-week trial when it was first recommend about 20 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509411/ Since then there has been around twenty RCTs.
I even found this one which was the more traditional DASH diet compared to a high fat DASH diet, and was just as effective at lowering BP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718414
"CONCLUSIONS:
The HF-DASH diet lowered blood pressure to the same extent as the DASH diet but also reduced plasma triglyceride and VLDL concentrations without significantly increasing LDL cholesterol. "
I mainly dislike guidelines because very little is actually proven. We know transfats are bad. We know lots of sugar or highly processed and refined foods in a diet is not healthy. We know some basic macronutrient needs in protein and fats. Beyond that, there is debate.
In science, nothing is proven. That's been the dominant model of it since Popper - the desire for being able to always falsify incorrect beliefs has the result that science only disproves things, and never proves them. Proof is mathematical.
What science deals in is evidence. A hypothesis or theory is better when it explains more things consistently while producing the most accurate and novel predictions.
In health science, there is the level the discussion of causation, which I think is what you might mean when you use the term proven. Health science's standards are such that while epidemiological data and animal models are both evidence for hypotheses, they are not considered to demonstrate causation - that requires RCTs.
It seems odd though. Guidelines all are targeting the epidemiological level, so the evidence doesn't need to be at the level of causally demonstrative to be worth advising.
And frankly, I'm not sure we can say a lot of sugar in a diet is not healthy without more qualifications. The Kuna of Panama consume about 95 grams a day of sugar - more than the average American. They don't seem to be unhealthy for it.7 -
I work in a gym and am fortunate enough to have access to a very accurate body composition scale that also gives an estimated basal metabolic rate based on your lean body mass. I weigh 120lbs and have an average amount of lean body mass for my weight and my BMR is 1300 calories which is the lower end and I’ve weighed 100s of people on the in body scale. If I factor in my 3-4X a week workout my weight loss calorie goal is 1520. 1200 calories is the internet standard but the reason you weren’t losing any weight is because you are under eating. I see this all the time and it is absolutely real. Most women need to eat about 1600-1800 to lose 1lb a week. Any less and your body goes into conservation mode. If you want to go back to a less restrictive diet and just track your food try this and trust me the scale won’t be stuck! We see this all the time and though it seems counter-intuitive increasing food always works and is actually sustainable :-)
Conservation mode or starvation mode is a fitness industry myth. There are two true things that when misunderstood and conflated makes the myth seem true.- Adaptive thermogenesis is the real "starvation mode" where your metabolism slows to adapt to not enough food. However this happens slowly over the long term of consistent undereating. We are talking months and years of restriction. And even so, it won't stop someone from losing weight, just slow it down, otherwise people wouldn't become emaciated.
- When someone undereats in the short term, it makes them fatigued and possibly a little moody or unfocused. This makes them subtley move around less - less fidgety, less effort put into workouts, slower walking pace, etc. Nothing they would necessarily notice, but enough to reduce their NEAT/TDEE to possibly slow down weight loss.
It's certainly better to fuel yourself properly, and not doing so can make weight loss more difficult in a number of ways. But it's not conservation mode. And I'd bet far more women aren't losing weight while eating 1200 calories because their logging is off and they're not really eating 1200 cals.
We also see a lot of posters who are under-eating and not losing weight, but what eventually comes out is the under-eating leads to binges they fail to initially report. These binges basically cancel out their deficit from the low cal days, especially when added to the fatigue effects.
Also you can't generalize those calorie needs. While some women would lose weight on 1600-1800 calories, lots of shorter women with smaller amounts to lose would maintain on those figures. I'm 5'4 125lbs and lightly active and I maintain on 1800 calories. I've never lost weight quickly and I'm very sensitive to hunger so I've never undereaten either.
You really sound like you know what you're talking about, is there any chance you could private message me if you get a chance, would really like someones help as I seem to have flatlined with the weight loss0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.
I don't think all carnivores are uber particular about classifying their diets. Most eat what they can tolerate with an eye to better health. Most would eat plants (autotrophs) if they could without negative effects. As I said, I know some who include fungi since they don't seem to pose the same health problems that many plant foods do for those people.
And you are right. I mixed myself up about DASH. Sorry. There was one 4-week trial when it was first recommend about 20 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509411/ Since then there has been around twenty RCTs.
I even found this one which was the more traditional DASH diet compared to a high fat DASH diet, and was just as effective at lowering BP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718414
"CONCLUSIONS:
The HF-DASH diet lowered blood pressure to the same extent as the DASH diet but also reduced plasma triglyceride and VLDL concentrations without significantly increasing LDL cholesterol. "
I mainly dislike guidelines because very little is actually proven. We know transfats are bad. We know lots of sugar or highly processed and refined foods in a diet is not healthy. We know some basic macronutrient needs in protein and fats. Beyond that, there is debate.
Guidelines are based on studies that show correlation. There is evidence to support them. But just because they don't fit your situation or personal preference doesn't make them disproved or worthless. The biggest issue with them is the individual response may not align to those specific guidelines. But at the very least, there should be a place to start.
The conclusions on SFAs are inconclusive, IMO. Correlations aren't proof/evidence of anything. They should be used to generate a hypothesis. For example, I showed this to my science class while discussing climate change and the popular theory that CO2 drives global warming:
Then I showed them this:
And finally this:
It is possible that CO2 plays a role in global warming in some circumstances - not all. Likewise, it is possible that SFA in the diet can contribute to CVD in some circumstances (like a diet high is processed carbs which would be fat sparing). Stating that replacing SFAs with whole grains WILL reduce CVD is just not a universal truth. For the majority, with IR, I doubt adding carbs and removing fats would benefit them. Partially because of this, I don't think there should be guidelines against SFAs in general.
Why make guidelines that probably don't apply to most people?12 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.
I don't think all carnivores are uber particular about classifying their diets. Most eat what they can tolerate with an eye to better health. Most would eat plants (autotrophs) if they could without negative effects. As I said, I know some who include fungi since they don't seem to pose the same health problems that many plant foods do for those people.
And you are right. I mixed myself up about DASH. Sorry. There was one 4-week trial when it was first recommend about 20 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509411/ Since then there has been around twenty RCTs.
I even found this one which was the more traditional DASH diet compared to a high fat DASH diet, and was just as effective at lowering BP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718414
"CONCLUSIONS:
The HF-DASH diet lowered blood pressure to the same extent as the DASH diet but also reduced plasma triglyceride and VLDL concentrations without significantly increasing LDL cholesterol. "
I mainly dislike guidelines because very little is actually proven. We know transfats are bad. We know lots of sugar or highly processed and refined foods in a diet is not healthy. We know some basic macronutrient needs in protein and fats. Beyond that, there is debate.
Guidelines are based on studies that show correlation. There is evidence to support them. But just because they don't fit your situation or personal preference doesn't make them disproved or worthless. The biggest issue with them is the individual response may not align to those specific guidelines. But at the very least, there should be a place to start.
The conclusions on SFAs are inconclusive, IMO. Correlations aren't proof/evidence of anything. They should be used to generate a hypothesis. For example, I showed this to my science class while discussing climate change and the popular theory that CO2 drives global warming:
Then I showed them this:
And finally this:
It is possible that CO2 plays a role in global warming in some circumstances - not all. Likewise, it is possible that SFA in the diet can contribute to CVD in some circumstances (like a diet high is processed carbs which would be fat sparing). Stating that replacing SFAs with whole grains WILL reduce CVD is just not a universal truth. For the majority, with IR, I doubt adding carbs and removing fats would benefit them. Partially because of this, I don't think there should be guidelines against SFAs in general.
Why make guidelines that probably don't apply to most people?
Being silly by showing crazy correlations doesn't contribute to the conversation. They aren't any studies showing those correlations, like there are regarding things in nutrition. What I also find even more interesting, is that you will universally tell people to limit whole grains, sugar and processed foods (including cereals), even when actual studies (RCTs, Meta Analyses, etc...) showing otherwise (exception is added sugars). Similarly, there is decades of research, multiple RCT, meta-analysis showing NO benefit for SFA, and in some a cases adverse effects, yet you willing believe that there shouldn't be a limitation on them. And the only argument you make is correlation =/= causation. It's a ridiculous argument because there are zero causative studies. Even smoking and lung cancer is correlation and I bet you wouldn't recommend people start smoking.
Second, the majority of the US or world is not insulin resistant. Even with a 70% obesity rate in the US, only about 10% are IR. And if even if you try to use the undiagnosed number, it's still only 33%.
So why make guidelines they way they are? Well largely because it's based on the available evidence out there. If you say, the US is persuaded by bad science or lobbying, then I would ask why the WHO or multiple other countries show similar results with their recommendations?
Ultimately, people need to start focusing on whole foods. Putting limits on highly processed foods is one of the first good steps to improve health, regardless of their current health situation. Because it's a whole lot easier to control calories when you are eating whole foods as compared to pork rinds, donuts, pizza, etc...
And personally, an almost more zone approach might be a better recommendation to start with and have people adjust from there based on satiety/hunger cues. At least at that point, it gets away from the whole low carb vs low fat crap.10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.
I don't think all carnivores are uber particular about classifying their diets. Most eat what they can tolerate with an eye to better health. Most would eat plants (autotrophs) if they could without negative effects. As I said, I know some who include fungi since they don't seem to pose the same health problems that many plant foods do for those people.
And you are right. I mixed myself up about DASH. Sorry. There was one 4-week trial when it was first recommend about 20 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509411/ Since then there has been around twenty RCTs.
I even found this one which was the more traditional DASH diet compared to a high fat DASH diet, and was just as effective at lowering BP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718414
"CONCLUSIONS:
The HF-DASH diet lowered blood pressure to the same extent as the DASH diet but also reduced plasma triglyceride and VLDL concentrations without significantly increasing LDL cholesterol. "
I mainly dislike guidelines because very little is actually proven. We know transfats are bad. We know lots of sugar or highly processed and refined foods in a diet is not healthy. We know some basic macronutrient needs in protein and fats. Beyond that, there is debate.
Guidelines are based on studies that show correlation. There is evidence to support them. But just because they don't fit your situation or personal preference doesn't make them disproved or worthless. The biggest issue with them is the individual response may not align to those specific guidelines. But at the very least, there should be a place to start.
The conclusions on SFAs are inconclusive, IMO. Correlations aren't proof/evidence of anything. They should be used to generate a hypothesis. For example, I showed this to my science class while discussing climate change and the popular theory that CO2 drives global warming:
Then I showed them this:
And finally this:
It is possible that CO2 plays a role in global warming in some circumstances - not all. Likewise, it is possible that SFA in the diet can contribute to CVD in some circumstances (like a diet high is processed carbs which would be fat sparing). Stating that replacing SFAs with whole grains WILL reduce CVD is just not a universal truth. For the majority, with IR, I doubt adding carbs and removing fats would benefit them. Partially because of this, I don't think there should be guidelines against SFAs in general.
Why make guidelines that probably don't apply to most people?
Your use of that about climate change is actually brilliant - in that it gives insight into you, not into actually arguing the science.
The AGW theory of climate change is not simply a correlation between CO2 and global average temperature. There is vast amounts of modeling with predictive power about it. I'm not aware of any model that successfully predicts climate that ignores CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and frankly, given just the simple chemistry and physics of carbon dioxide, I'd be absolutely shocked for a model to work that didn't take it into account in some fashion.
Now what is funny is you've launched into your trying to develop a rationally built model of this idea of whole grains versus SFAs and what you'd predict happens in people with IR. Well great, that's empirically testable, and guess what? A lot of these studies on replacing SFAs with grains are done on diabetics - those people with the worst IR, right - because of the associations between diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and CVD.
As far as guidelines having to apply to everyone, why? We don't use language that way. Almost any food could have at least one person that has an allergy to it, but I don't say peanuts aren't food because it kills some people. I think this is just to misconstrue what most people mean by guidelines and instead treat them as totalitarian rules. Which is frankly, bizarre: "well, here's these ideas we've come up with a rational, empirical, falsifiable system, but now that we've got these ideas don't dare apply any of the same tools to yourself with how you interact with them."15 -
https://health.harvard.edu/blog/ketogenic-diet-is-the-ultimate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
I see this thread is heading to woo land perhaps but here is a thought from the world of medicine on Keto good vs bad for those serious about the question. There seems to be no one answer since we are not all the same on the inside for one reason or another.5 -
So there's this....I ran my DNA data through foundmyfitness.com and it specifically said that a ketogenic diet would be unhealthy and not work for my genotype. Also, people with the FTO cluster of genes have an increased appetite, slower metabolism and a higher risk for things like diabetes when they are on a diet high in saturated fats. They need unsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fats, especially from fish to dial down the epigenetic expression of the FTO genes ("obesity" genes). Ketogenic diets often rely on a lot of saturated fats, and proponents of the diet argue that saturated fats being bad for you is a myth. Well, yes and no. They probably are okay for people without the FTO genes, but they are horrible for people with them. It's a greater percentage of the population than you'd think....I've heard as much as 44%, depending on ethnicity.17
-
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/matching-dna-to-a-diet-does-not-work/
https://www.livescience.com/61807-do-dna-diets-work.html
Looks like there isn't much of substance to DNA testing for dieting.15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://health.harvard.edu/blog/ketogenic-diet-is-the-ultimate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
I see this thread is heading to woo land perhaps but here is a thought from the world of medicine on Keto good vs bad for those serious about the question. There seems to be no one answer since we are not all the same on the inside for one reason or another.
Actually, human beings have really little genetic variation compared with a lot of other species...5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://health.harvard.edu/blog/ketogenic-diet-is-the-ultimate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
I see this thread is heading to woo land perhaps but here is a thought from the world of medicine on Keto good vs bad for those serious about the question. There seems to be no one answer since we are not all the same on the inside for one reason or another.
Actually, human beings have really little genetic variation compared with a lot of other species...
True. It is genetic make up of our gut microbiome numbered in the trillions so our genetic make up is not mainly human. The make up of the macros that make up the way we eat impacts the make up of the human gut microbiome.15 -
Keto diets as well as other diets can really help shep weight. The problem which arises is when the diet is over. Trying to go back to eating regularly causes many people to regain weight. It seems more sensible to eat a balanced regular diet, reduce caloric intake, and be mindful of portion sizes. In my humble opinion.4
-
mitch22098 wrote: »Keto diets as well as other diets can really help shep weight. The problem which arises is when the diet is over. Trying to go back to eating regularly causes many people to regain weight. It seems more sensible to eat a balanced regular diet, reduce caloric intake, and be mindful of portion sizes. In my humble opinion.
Why stop keto?
I have been Keto going on 5 years eating the same amount . Lost 50 pounds first year and maintained last 4 years.
I did not do Keto to lose weight but to fix health issues causing obesity in the first place .15 -
mitch22098 wrote: »Keto diets as well as other diets can really help shep weight. The problem which arises is when the diet is over. Trying to go back to eating regularly causes many people to regain weight. It seems more sensible to eat a balanced regular diet, reduce caloric intake, and be mindful of portion sizes. In my humble opinion.
People who succeed long term on keto generally do it as a lifestyle change, not a temporary diet. Really any success on a diet is driven by that. So choose one you can do for life...6 -
Keto has been fantastic for me but. Shrug.3
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://health.harvard.edu/blog/ketogenic-diet-is-the-ultimate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
I see this thread is heading to woo land perhaps but here is a thought from the world of medicine on Keto good vs bad for those serious about the question. There seems to be no one answer since we are not all the same on the inside for one reason or another.
Actually, human beings have really little genetic variation compared with a lot of other species...
True. It is genetic make up of our gut microbiome numbered in the trillions so our genetic make up is not mainly human. The make up of the macros that make up the way we eat impacts the make up of the human gut microbiome.
Actually, the main determiner of the makeup of the gut microbiome is exposure to a range of bacteria. There's a fair bit of evidence that people who spend a lot of time outdoors tend to have more varied gut bacteria and generally better health. (Though the extent to which the latter results from the former is unclear; there are a lot of confounding factors there)7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://health.harvard.edu/blog/ketogenic-diet-is-the-ultimate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
I see this thread is heading to woo land perhaps but here is a thought from the world of medicine on Keto good vs bad for those serious about the question. There seems to be no one answer since we are not all the same on the inside for one reason or another.
Actually, human beings have really little genetic variation compared with a lot of other species...
True. It is genetic make up of our gut microbiome numbered in the trillions so our genetic make up is not mainly human. The make up of the macros that make up the way we eat impacts the make up of the human gut microbiome.
Actually, the main determiner of the makeup of the gut microbiome is exposure to a range of bacteria. There's a fair bit of evidence that people who spend a lot of time outdoors tend to have more varied gut bacteria and generally better health. (Though the extent to which the latter results from the former is unclear; there are a lot of confounding factors there)
So true that the main determiner of the makeup of the gut microbiome is exposure to range of bacteria. Naturally the outdoors is loaded with all types of bacteria and aids getting it into our gut. Eating picnics outdoors, drinking out of streams, eating wild fruit with our bacteria covered hands can give us access to a broader range of bacteria for our gut. Eating tomatoes, melons, turnips as we gather them is another source of ingested bacteria. Then there is the major different source of bacteria that is airborne that we get to breath when outdoors.
The research article below points out 7 factors influencing the human gut microbiome. I see Berberine usage got a shout out for modulating the gut microbiota in addressing Type 2 Diabetes.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483960/
Factors Influencing the Gut Microbiota, Inflammation, and Type 2 Diabetes7 -
sammidelvecchio wrote: »
I do drift out of ketosis for 36-48 hours a few times a month when I do carb refeeds without any major issues. However I do notice a bit of flareup in my lower back and hips due to arthritis and my lower back being fused.
I've always wondered if I was crazy when I began associating high carb intake with arthritis flares. I have other things that cause them too, but no one ever took me seriously. I've used "carb conscious" eating since December and I have found it has helped my arthritis significantly.
Ive only got to have a couple of days of eating bread and my knees feel crippled.5 -
Keep in mind, the keto diet is only good for short term. It is not a long term diet, aka lifestyle. The brain needs about 130 g of carbohydrate, minimum! Everything in moderation. Trying different kinds of carbohydrates such as sweet potatoes or quinoa might help. This is an extreme diet, so when you come off it, the body does not know what to do when other foods are introduced, therefor gaining all the weight back. Need to find what works, typically having 30% calories being carbs, and then 35% for protein and fat. I find that I function well with less carbs because I am insulin sensitive, but I still need to eat so I can rebuild muscles ect. Of course the keto diet works, not saying it does not, however, the aftermath is more serious. Need crucial vitamins and minerals from vegetables and other foods that you may not be able to eat during the diet. Keep in mind that everything in moderation. Listen to the body and keep finding what works optimally for the body!17
-
sararejnok wrote: »Keep in mind, the keto diet is only good for short term. It is not a long term diet, aka lifestyle. The brain needs about 130 g of carbohydrate, minimum! Everything in moderation. Trying different kinds of carbohydrates such as sweet potatoes or quinoa might help. This is an extreme diet, so when you come off it, the body does not know what to do when other foods are introduced, therefor gaining all the weight back. Need to find what works, typically having 30% calories being carbs, and then 35% for protein and fat. I find that I function well with less carbs because I am insulin sensitive, but I still need to eat so I can rebuild muscles ect. Of course the keto diet works, not saying it does not, however, the aftermath is more serious. Need crucial vitamins and minerals from vegetables and other foods that you may not be able to eat during the diet. Keep in mind that everything in moderation. Listen to the body and keep finding what works optimally for the body!
So much nope in one post... sigh.
Yes the brain prefers glucose (not carbs but glucose) for energy, but you do not need to consume the glucose for it to be available. There are biological processes to convert fat into glucose, plus, the brain can get around 65% of it's energy from ketones (the energy source the body creates from fat).
The body doesn't magically forget how to process other foods... that is not what causes people to regain weight when they come off any diet. What causes the weight gain is that people most often revert to the eating habits that got them fat in the first place. If your body cannot process something that you eat, it just goes straight thru you - it does not get stored as fat.
You should look up nutrient values in the USDA food database - animal sources have almost as many of the vitamins and minerals that the body needs and they are usually more bio-available than those that are in plants.6 -
sararejnok wrote: »This is an extreme diet, so when you come off it, the body does not know what to do when other foods are introduced, therefor gaining all the weight back.
If this were true, our species would be extinct by now...
5 -
sararejnok wrote: »This is an extreme diet, so when you come off it, the body does not know what to do when other foods are introduced, therefor gaining all the weight back.
If this were true, our species would be extinct by now...
It always cracks me up when people post something about how confused our bodies get by certain deviations in eating or behavior. When it comes to the processes in our body, there is no thinking involved, therefore there can be no confusion. The idea that our bodies don't know what to do when other foods are introduced is laughable. So if a person has never had carrotts in their life, and suddenly at the age of 30 they try one, are they suddenly going to gain weight? However do babies survive their infancy when they are constantly being introduced to new foods?
I can't stand when outrageous claims are made about keto that suggest that a person will lose weight regardless of caloric intake, but it is just as bad when people are ignorant on the other side as well. Keto may be sustainable for some people, and for those who try it and reintroduce carbs, there is no guarantee that they will suddenly gain all the weight they have lost back(other than some water weight initially, but water weight and fat are two completely different things). Thats why the question about good or bad is impossible to answer. Its a great tool for some people to stay within a caloric deficit, and it is not so good for others(me included). It is the spread of woo on both sides that makes this whole issue cloudy and gets people worked up when the facts are pretty simple. For weight loss, a caloric deficit is necessary. Keto helps some people adhere to a caloric deficit which is why it works for them. For those who are unable to adhere to, or sustain a caloric deficit with keto then its not for them.20 -
sararejnok wrote: »This is an extreme diet, so when you come off it, the body does not know what to do when other foods are introduced, therefor gaining all the weight back.
If this were true, our species would be extinct by now...
The only thing that is even potentially credible is that a person on keto will often get diet induced insulin resistance where the body can take time to adapt back to consuming carbs. Now with that said, I am not sure if there is a ton of research on this topic, but I have seen a little discussing the topic.
If it has validity, it would make binging on carbs while on keto even worse.1 -
I simply can’t do what I do (that which lights my fire exercise wise) on a Keto diet.
So no... for me, Keto = bad
I don’t think You find many hardcore cyclists (folks that race, or train like they race and are truly dedicated to the craft - not just using it for “cardio”) doing the low/no carb thing. IMHO, seems That’s a sure fire way to plow into an invisible brick wall right around mile 20.
Hell, I not even sure a carbaphobe could hang with a pack of glycogen junkies on a bike for any distance? Where will the quick fuel come from when one of us decides to drop the hammer and breakaway?
Anyone ride hard and long on Keto? Can you hang? Talking sustained maximum effort endurance stuff.2 -
Pentagon eyes ketogenic diet in bid to build more lethal warriors
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/10/pentagon-eyes-ketogenic-diet-bid-build-more-lethal/15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Pentagon eyes ketogenic diet in bid to build more lethal warriors
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/10/pentagon-eyes-ketogenic-diet-bid-build-more-lethal/
Changing the title of the piece, without clearly stating that you are doing so, is intellectually dishonest.
But I suspect you know that
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions