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.

To Keto or Not To Keto?

1…5681011…19

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited February 2021
    rileyes wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    rileyes wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    rileyes wrote: »
    Anyone read the book *The Fatburn Fix* by Catherine Shanahan?
    If it's about keto, then there's likely no other new information with probably the exception of recipes. It's the craze right now (not that it has reappeared at least once every decade or so)



    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
    I read Part I and so far am intrigued and a bit frightened. Below is a podcast with her (it gets better at the 24-min mark). Worth a full view:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugl1RsmU-HI

    From the book's item description on Amazon:

    " . . . but over decades of practice, renowned family physician Catherine Shanahan, M.D., observed that many of her patients could not burn their body fat between meals, . . . "

    A couple red flags here. First, her practice is a family practice, she doesn't specialize in weight loss. In and of itself, that isn't a problem. Generalists certainly have added to the sum of human knowledge over the years. But I'd have some follow up questions about her experience and qualifications.

    Second, what does it mean to "observe" that her patients cannot burn body fat between meals? What are the signs that someone is burning body fat between meals as opposed to someone who isn't? What kind of controls were these patients under? In other words, how did she verify that they SHOULD be burning fat between meals but were not? How did she compare these specific patients to her non-patients who were able to burn fat between meals?

    "Dr. Shanahan shares five important rules to fix your fatburn:

    1) Eat natural fats, not vegetable oils.
    2) Eat slow-digesting carbs, not starchy carbs or sweets.
    3) Seek salt.
    4) Drink plenty of water.
    5) Supplement with vitamins and minerals."

    Anyone can write rules, the trick is showing that these rules make a difference. Given that her practice is a family practice, how did she go about establishing that following these rules make a meaningful difference as opposed to someone simply introducing a calorie deficit to lose weight?

    I'd exercise caution here, especially since you're admitting the plan is already making you feel frightened (which may be a sign you've picked up on some additional red flags that weren't evidence in the item description).

    What is frightening is how many people developing Type 2 diabetes. She illustrates a path that leads to disease. I read a lot of posts on MFP detailing the same symptoms and their methods of relief; relief that can cause damage to the metabolism.

    What are you referring to here?

    I don't think you have to accept this particular family practitioner's theories about why her patients are somehow UNABLE to burn fat (again, not sure what this means or how she determined it) to recognize that T2D is a real problem.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,386 MFP Moderator
    rileyes wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Here are some quotes from her book, many which I don't agree with because physiology 101 doesn't refer to it.

    · Page 6, “We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”

    · Page 9, “In other words, the kind of fat you eat changes what kinds of fuel your body’s cells can use, which determines everything about your health.”

    · Page 19, “When your metabolism is damaged, you lack energy. When you lack energy, you want to eat more often, and most of us seek out foods that make metabolic damage worse. It’s a trap—but you can escape if you can get more energy.”

    · Page 20, “A healthy metabolism uses body fat to sustain your energy all day so that you don’t need to rely on food to keep your energy up. When your metabolism is healthy, you have plenty of energy all day long even if you don’t have time to eat.”

    · Page 20, “Low energy also makes you gain weight. When your energy is down, you’re going to feel lazier than when your energy is up.”




    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    I’m reading Part 2 now. More science-driven than the intro. She cites various scientific studies and shares political and societal changes to the norm.

    Something to consider, with all books, even with quoted studies, it doesn't mean that they are statijg what the actual study is saying.

    I guess the larger question is what are your goals and what are you trying to achieve?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,386 MFP Moderator
    rileyes wrote: »
    She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).

    @psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.

    And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    rileyes wrote: »
    She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).

    @psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.

    And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.

    Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?

    That's what always puzzles me about the claims that we should eat a certain kind of way to be able to burn fat. Of course we can all burn fat, and do daily.

    I think it's a kind of trickery, taking a concept relevant to certain athletic events (for example, long distance running or biking) and acting as if it has some relevance to whether we burn fat when at rest or walking about or whatnot. Specifically, there's a theory that one can improve the ability to burn fat at higher (but still not super intense) levels of exertion, the idea being to limit the amount of additional fuel one needs when running a marathon or the like.

    I am struck by the bit that Ninerbuff quoted above, specifically:

    “We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”

    I would say, sure, for the first two sentences (although I would ask what "should" is supposed to imply). But of course we already CAN, we don't need to follow whatever the diet at issue is. Some people like having regular snacks or find they control cals better with snacks, but the idea that absent the special diet we are unable to function without snacks is a total strawman.

    Re one meal a day, I don't find that especially hard to do (did it less than a week ago), but I would disagree that there's something wrong with someone who gets hungry when doing that. Much of eating IMO is habitual, and one is normally kind of hungry if one doesn't eat when they normally do. Also, I doubt that humans historically tended to a one meal a day pattern, which goes against the claim that that is how we "should" eat. Humans biologically can deal well for short periods of time when food is less available, sure, and that is probably also why we find it so easy to overeat when food is available, but the idea that we've lost our ability to do this because of our diets again seems like a strawman. I'd bet the vast majority of humans, including those prehistorical or traditional culture humans Shanahan is claiming to be learning this from, would prefer to eat more than that if possible.

    Also, I personally find it difficult to meet nutritional needs in one sitting. I eat 2 meals per day now and like it, but it is slightly harder to meet all of my nutritional needs as compared to 3 meals a day just because there's only so much protein and volume I can eat at a time without eating more meat than I prefer. When I ate breakfast I had a third opportunity to consume vegetables, other sources of fiber, and protein. (But this is an aside. I'm sure some can do fine on one meal a day, just not sure why it's supposed to be bad to prefer other patterns.)
  • iFartMagic
    iFartMagic Posts: 21 Member
    Like everyone else has said, it depends on if it is something you can stick to. If you can't handle not eating carbs, then no? If you restrict yourself too hard you could end up binging, and that's no good.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    edited February 2021
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    rileyes wrote: »
    She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).

    @psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.

    And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.

    Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?

    That's what always puzzles me about the claims that we should eat a certain kind of way to be able to burn fat. Of course we can all burn fat, and do daily.

    I think it's a kind of trickery, taking a concept relevant to certain athletic events (for example, long distance running or biking) and acting as if it has some relevance to whether we burn fat when at rest or walking about or whatnot. Specifically, there's a theory that one can improve the ability to burn fat at higher (but still not super intense) levels of exertion, the idea being to limit the amount of additional fuel one needs when running a marathon or the like.

    I am struck by the bit that Ninerbuff quoted above, specifically:

    “We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”

    I would say, sure, for the first two sentences (although I would ask what "should" is supposed to imply). But of course we already CAN, we don't need to follow whatever the diet at issue is. Some people like having regular snacks or find they control cals better with snacks, but the idea that absent the special diet we are unable to function without snacks is a total strawman.

    Re one meal a day, I don't find that especially hard to do (did it less than a week ago), but I would disagree that there's something wrong with someone who gets hungry when doing that. Much of eating IMO is habitual, and one is normally kind of hungry if one doesn't eat when they normally do. Also, I doubt that humans historically tended to a one meal a day pattern, which goes against the claim that that is how we "should" eat. Humans biologically can deal well for short periods of time when food is less available, sure, and that is probably also why we find it so easy to overeat when food is available, but the idea that we've lost our ability to do this because of our diets again seems like a strawman. I'd bet the vast majority of humans, including those prehistorical or traditional culture humans Shanahan is claiming to be learning this from, would prefer to eat more than that if possible.

    Also, I personally find it difficult to meet nutritional needs in one sitting. I eat 2 meals per day now and like it, but it is slightly harder to meet all of my nutritional needs as compared to 3 meals a day just because there's only so much protein and volume I can eat at a time without eating more meat than I prefer. When I ate breakfast I had a third opportunity to consume vegetables, other sources of fiber, and protein. (But this is an aside. I'm sure some can do fine on one meal a day, just not sure why it's supposed to be bad to prefer other patterns.)

    Our real problem is that we have not changed all that much from our pre-historic ancestors. Our drive to eat is the same. We are surrounded by food, they were not.
  • jennacole12
    jennacole12 Posts: 1,167 Member
    Assuming everyone knows a calorie deficit is the only way to lose, to me how they get in a deficit is their choice. But when doing anything that requires restriction similar to keto, I do think it is important to note at some point you will have to transition into a more balanced approach, as keto is not maintainable long term. I have lots of friends who did it and then when they hit goal they switched to macros slowly adding in carbs. I just started initially with counting calories and learned moderation that way.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    jennacole12 wrote: »
    Assuming everyone knows a calorie deficit is the only way to lose, to me how they get in a deficit is their choice. But when doing anything that requires restriction similar to keto, I do think it is important to note at some point you will have to transition into a more balanced approach, as keto is not maintainable long term. I have lots of friends who did it and then when they hit goal they switched to macros slowly adding in carbs. I just started initially with counting calories and learned moderation that way.

    If someone LIKES eating in the keto style, I don't know why it couldn't be maintained long term. If someone doesn't like it, it won't be easy to maintain (but you can say that about any style of eating, really). If saying it isn't maintainable long term is just another way of saying that very few people would enjoy eating that way for the rest of their life, then I would probably agree with you.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,935 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    rileyes wrote: »
    She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).

    @psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.

    And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.

    Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?

    That's what always puzzles me about the claims that we should eat a certain kind of way to be able to burn fat. Of course we can all burn fat, and do daily.

    I think it's a kind of trickery, taking a concept relevant to certain athletic events (for example, long distance running or biking) and acting as if it has some relevance to whether we burn fat when at rest or walking about or whatnot. Specifically, there's a theory that one can improve the ability to burn fat at higher (but still not super intense) levels of exertion, the idea being to limit the amount of additional fuel one needs when running a marathon or the like.

    I am struck by the bit that Ninerbuff quoted above, specifically:

    “We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”

    I would say, sure, for the first two sentences (although I would ask what "should" is supposed to imply). But of course we already CAN, we don't need to follow whatever the diet at issue is. Some people like having regular snacks or find they control cals better with snacks, but the idea that absent the special diet we are unable to function without snacks is a total strawman.

    Re one meal a day, I don't find that especially hard to do (did it less than a week ago), but I would disagree that there's something wrong with someone who gets hungry when doing that. Much of eating IMO is habitual, and one is normally kind of hungry if one doesn't eat when they normally do. Also, I doubt that humans historically tended to a one meal a day pattern, which goes against the claim that that is how we "should" eat. Humans biologically can deal well for short periods of time when food is less available, sure, and that is probably also why we find it so easy to overeat when food is available, but the idea that we've lost our ability to do this because of our diets again seems like a strawman. I'd bet the vast majority of humans, including those prehistorical or traditional culture humans Shanahan is claiming to be learning this from, would prefer to eat more than that if possible.

    Also, I personally find it difficult to meet nutritional needs in one sitting. I eat 2 meals per day now and like it, but it is slightly harder to meet all of my nutritional needs as compared to 3 meals a day just because there's only so much protein and volume I can eat at a time without eating more meat than I prefer. When I ate breakfast I had a third opportunity to consume vegetables, other sources of fiber, and protein. (But this is an aside. I'm sure some can do fine on one meal a day, just not sure why it's supposed to be bad to prefer other patterns.)

    This will probably get me into trouble, but I feel like some of this special-methods stuff relies on a subtle side of the whole "diet industry" pull. If there are obscure secret methods that can be unlocked, that's reinforcement of the idea that something outside our conscious control, outside our current knowledge, is responsible for our gaining excess body weight. If there are tricks or hacks that we simply didn't know about, that's sort of a cognitive hall pass. It's reassuring. Finding the advocated method to work will be confidence building (in the theory, and in oneself), and make it easier to stay the necessary course.

    I'm *not* saying that IF, or keto, or any other variation are *not* helpful tools, in a practical sense, for particular people. I'm quite confident that they are.

    The factors that make those things helpful for particular people, though, are really not fully self-evident, IMO. To me, some of the "scientific" rationales given by their advocates' marketing don't pass a common sense (let alone science-based) sniff test. As a knowingly overly simplistic example, if fat loss physiologically *requires* the insulin drops that come via fasting, no one should lose fat without fasting. But people do.

    It's always possible - for all I know - that genetic variations (or gut microbiome, etc.) play a role that contributes to individual variation in techniques that work best . . . but that doesn't usually seem to be the typical representation, in the marketing of the "special methods" advocates. Besides, among the small number of tightly-controlled intake studies I've seen, there don't seem to be significant exceptions from CICO (the equation, not the calorie counting method as performed by individuals). There's pretty much just the minor variation from the mean that one might expect from known common-sense factors.
  • Poobah1972
    Poobah1972 Posts: 943 Member
    edited February 2021
    I'll be the first to agree you gotta do what works for you.... Everyone's different.

    For me, being uber huge... and constantly binging on sugar, likely addicted. Unable to stop myself from stopping at a store or restaurant to gorge my face before supper. Keto completely solve the addiction in just days... Not only that all my back pain disappeared in 3 days. My knee pain was completely gone in about 1 week. My sugar addiction was solved in about 3 days, and I haven't stopped anywhere on my way home from work in 7 weeks, (nor do i even contemplate).

    I also Love... and I mean LOVE. Meat. Prime Rib, Pork Chops, Strip Lions, Roasted chicken with Skin, Bacon etc etc... And I'm an amazing cook. I enjoy each and every meal i eat (And I eat the vegetables or salad with said meats). The only thing that changed about my old meals and my new meals is.... I don't have a serving of starch anymore. No potato, no rice, no pasta. That's about it.

    Granted I do eat berries, and there is amazing low carb bread available.. and there is even decent low carb pasta... Or cabbage lasagna, Foe Sheppard's pie or a ton of other recipes we make. But the moral of the story is, I love what I eat at every meal.

    That all said, don't get the wrong impression. My 10 oz strip loin, i now only eat half of. My prime Rib steak I split with my wife and only eat half of that. I only eat about a 4 ounce roasted chicken thigh and the drumstick get's backed for lunch. But it's not the quantity of food that makes the food so tasty. And with sugar out of my life, I almost never feel hungry, so it's now very easy to be satisfied with smaller portions.

    And i was never big on fruits anyway, so no loss for me.

    This is why it works for me.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    I wonder if since Keto was originally used to treat epilepsy if it would work for tinnitus? Anyone have any experience with that?

Categories