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?
Options
Replies
-
Well part of it is because to absorb 1gram of carbs it takes 4 grams of water. With keto you don't get that. So it's NOT fat weight you're gaining.For me I can eat 1500 calories of good carbs veggies grains fruit and gain weight. If I eat 1500 calories of keto I lose weight
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
I say yes...I like using a lot of food products designed for keto even though I wouldn't eat that way myself. Also, a lot of keto products are awesome for folks doing Atkins. Funny how that works...0
-
I'm doing both Keto and intermitting fasting. I have never done Keto but I've done some sort of intermitting fasting for the last 7 years. This time around I'm being disciplined about both diets. I am fully aware and believe you cannot change your eating habits and be successful for the rest of your life. But the truth is the rest of my life may only be 20 years away.
I am hoping this time is different. I'm 66. When I began my diets I weighed 200lbs. I am in decent health except for high blood pressure and cholesterol which runs in my family. I am very active, which I have been all of my life. I've ran 5 marathons, and in the last 5 years hiked 610 miles on the Appalachian Trail and last year walked the Camino de Santiago French route which was about 500 miles.
I'm planning to hike the Portugues route next year. My focus is to remain healthy into my late 70s.
I've been on both diets now for 14 days. I have gone from 201 lbs to 190 today. To maintain this diet I've set a few parameters. I'm only doing the intermitting fasting (16-8) from Sunday evening at 6PM to Saturday morning 10 AM. I'm doing Keto Monday thru Friday.
This allows me to look forward to the weekend and splurge.
My first goal is to get down to 175 and maintain. My second goal is to remove all the toxins from my body in order to have a more perfect body, especially concerning digestion.
To keep me motivated, I'm always in the search for low carb foods, especially sweet ones. Yesterday I found Bryers Low Carb ice cream! Only 6 net carbs per serving!
In truth my plan is to be on both these diets for 2 months and see how it goes. After 2 months I will reevaluate my new eating habits and make appropriate adjustments. Follow me if you're interested. Jim1 -
I think as usual this comes down to personal preference/personal needs.
People may call keto a "fad" but there is nothing new or faddish about a low-carb diet. When it comes down to it, there isn't anything particularly shocking about it:
- eliminate (or at least strictly reduce) consumption of sugar, processed food, junk food in general
- control artificial sweeteners, if using any at all, to help control your sweet tooth/carb cravings
- eat real, wholesome, natural foods
The only real difference is the macro balance-- high protein/high fat. Honestly I don't see how that's any crazier than high carb/low fat diets. Fat and Protein are a requirement for the body while carbs are not. Grains in particular are not a nutritionally necessary component of any human diet, all grains are processed foods whether they're "brown" and "whole" or "white' and "refined" (if they weren't processed we wouldn't be able to digest them at all). You can get all the nutrition you might get from grains from other unprocessed sources: vegetables, fruits, and animal products.
I'm not saying everyone should have to exclude grains, particularly those on the healthier side-- if you want them, eat them. I'm not saying you have to eat meat/dairy if you don't want to, or if your unique health situations are better without them. People don't bat an eye when someone chooses not to eat meat, or dairy, but tell them you don't eat grains and you'll get strange looks or criticism or it is called a "fad".
Sure there are some health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of fat, but likewise there are health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of carbs. How individual bodies might respond to fat and carbs may play a big role in that as well. There is no one size fits all here; it's about picking what's best for you and your body.
I think the villainizing of low-carb diets came out of the low-fat craze, which turned out to be a complete disaster as a social experiment because it played a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics in western nations, esp. in children. And we now know a lot of the science that led to such "nutritional guidelines" that have been considered "conventional wisdom" was pretty faulty. They have overplayed the "evils" of fats and underplayed the "evils" of carbs for way too long, leaving a lot of people completely confused and frustrated and clueless about nutrition-- including, in many cases, people in the medical fields.
I've seen the benefits of a low-carb diet on my body and mind. You may find the same benefits on a more balanced diet, on a vegetarian diet, or vegan, or zero-carb carnivore diet.
The only advice I would push adamantly is to eat real foods (at least, mostly real) in a balance that works for you. The only "fad" diets I can think of are those that consist of mostly overly-processed food, stuffed with chemicals or supplements because it's nutritionally deficient on its own. Eating things like the mostly pill diets, the chemical-filled 50-ingredient diets (be they liquid or bars), concoctions like the "Jilly Juice" diet, the ice cube diet, the olive oil diet, the chocolate pudding diet... stuff like that I'm far wearier of than any diet that promotes real foods and a calorie deficit.1 -
If you're spluring on carbs for the weekend, then you're NOT doing keto. You're doing a low carb diet overall since keto dieting involves basically no carbs.caldon4523 wrote: »I'm doing both Keto and intermitting fasting. I have never done Keto but I've done some sort of intermitting fasting for the last 7 years. This time around I'm being disciplined about both diets. I am fully aware and believe you cannot change your eating habits and be successful for the rest of your life. But the truth is the rest of my life may only be 20 years away.
I am hoping this time is different. I'm 66. When I began my diets I weighed 200lbs. I am in decent health except for high blood pressure and cholesterol which runs in my family. I am very active, which I have been all of my life. I've ran 5 marathons, and in the last 5 years hiked 610 miles on the Appalachian Trail and last year walked the Camino de Santiago French route which was about 500 miles.
I'm planning to hike the Portugues route next year. My focus is to remain healthy into my late 70s.
I've been on both diets now for 14 days. I have gone from 201 lbs to 190 today. To maintain this diet I've set a few parameters. I'm only doing the intermitting fasting (16-8) from Sunday evening at 6PM to Saturday morning 10 AM. I'm doing Keto Monday thru Friday.
This allows me to look forward to the weekend and splurge.
My first goal is to get down to 175 and maintain. My second goal is to remove all the toxins from my body in order to have a more perfect body, especially concerning digestion.
To keep me motivated, I'm always in the search for low carb foods, especially sweet ones. Yesterday I found Bryers Low Carb ice cream! Only 6 net carbs per serving!
In truth my plan is to be on both these diets for 2 months and see how it goes. After 2 months I will reevaluate my new eating habits and make appropriate adjustments. Follow me if you're interested. Jim
Second, you can't remove "toxins" unless you're ingesting them. Toxins are poisons and if you ingested poison you'd need to go to a poison center. Things can become TOXIC if you overdose on them including water.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »I think as usual this comes down to personal preference/personal needs.
People may call keto a "fad" but there is nothing new or faddish about a low-carb diet. When it comes down to it, there isn't anything particularly shocking about it:
- eliminate (or at least strictly reduce) consumption of sugar, processed food, junk food in general
- control artificial sweeteners, if using any at all, to help control your sweet tooth/carb cravings
- eat real, wholesome, natural foods
The only real difference is the macro balance-- high protein/high fat. Honestly I don't see how that's any crazier than high carb/low fat diets. Fat and Protein are a requirement for the body while carbs are not. Grains in particular are not a nutritionally necessary component of any human diet, all grains are processed foods whether they're "brown" and "whole" or "white' and "refined" (if they weren't processed we wouldn't be able to digest them at all). You can get all the nutrition you might get from grains from other unprocessed sources: vegetables, fruits, and animal products.
I'm not saying everyone should have to exclude grains, particularly those on the healthier side-- if you want them, eat them. I'm not saying you have to eat meat/dairy if you don't want to, or if your unique health situations are better without them. People don't bat an eye when someone chooses not to eat meat, or dairy, but tell them you don't eat grains and you'll get strange looks or criticism or it is called a "fad".
Sure there are some health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of fat, but likewise there are health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of carbs. How individual bodies might respond to fat and carbs may play a big role in that as well. There is no one size fits all here; it's about picking what's best for you and your body.
I think the villainizing of low-carb diets came out of the low-fat craze, which turned out to be a complete disaster as a social experiment because it played a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics in western nations, esp. in children. And we now know a lot of the science that led to such "nutritional guidelines" that have been considered "conventional wisdom" was pretty faulty. They have overplayed the "evils" of fats and underplayed the "evils" of carbs for way too long, leaving a lot of people completely confused and frustrated and clueless about nutrition-- including, in many cases, people in the medical fields.
I've seen the benefits of a low-carb diet on my body and mind. You may find the same benefits on a more balanced diet, on a vegetarian diet, or vegan, or zero-carb carnivore diet.
The only advice I would push adamantly is to eat real foods (at least, mostly real) in a balance that works for you. The only "fad" diets I can think of are those that consist of mostly overly-processed food, stuffed with chemicals or supplements because it's nutritionally deficient on its own. Eating things like the mostly pill diets, the chemical-filled 50-ingredient diets (be they liquid or bars), concoctions like the "Jilly Juice" diet, the ice cube diet, the olive oil diet, the chocolate pudding diet... stuff like that I'm far wearier of than any diet that promotes real foods and a calorie deficit.
Calling it a fad isn't villainizing...being trendy is what makes it a fad...it's the very definition of a fad and it's not just pill diets. In the 90s Adkins was the craze...then everyone was doing South Beach...in 2010ish the dietary world was all about Paleo. Coming in and out of trendiness with the masses is what constitutes a fad, not that something has or has not existed at some point in time.
Also, there's never really been a "low fat craze"...recommendations to reduce fat started coming out in the 70s...we've done nothing but increase our consumption of dietary fat since then...so no, not really playing a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics since it didn't actually happen. Also, look at blue zones...these are some of the healthiest populations on the planet and eat high carbohydrate diets.4 -
If you're spluring on carbs for the weekend, then you're NOT doing keto. You're doing a low carb diet overall since keto dieting involves basically no carbs.caldon4523 wrote: »I'm doing both Keto and intermitting fasting. I have never done Keto but I've done some sort of intermitting fasting for the last 7 years. This time around I'm being disciplined about both diets. I am fully aware and believe you cannot change your eating habits and be successful for the rest of your life. But the truth is the rest of my life may only be 20 years away.
I am hoping this time is different. I'm 66. When I began my diets I weighed 200lbs. I am in decent health except for high blood pressure and cholesterol which runs in my family. I am very active, which I have been all of my life. I've ran 5 marathons, and in the last 5 years hiked 610 miles on the Appalachian Trail and last year walked the Camino de Santiago French route which was about 500 miles.
I'm planning to hike the Portugues route next year. My focus is to remain healthy into my late 70s.
I've been on both diets now for 14 days. I have gone from 201 lbs to 190 today. To maintain this diet I've set a few parameters. I'm only doing the intermitting fasting (16-8) from Sunday evening at 6PM to Saturday morning 10 AM. I'm doing Keto Monday thru Friday.
This allows me to look forward to the weekend and splurge.
My first goal is to get down to 175 and maintain. My second goal is to remove all the toxins from my body in order to have a more perfect body, especially concerning digestion.
To keep me motivated, I'm always in the search for low carb foods, especially sweet ones. Yesterday I found Bryers Low Carb ice cream! Only 6 net carbs per serving!
In truth my plan is to be on both these diets for 2 months and see how it goes. After 2 months I will reevaluate my new eating habits and make appropriate adjustments. Follow me if you're interested. Jim
Second, you can't remove "toxins" unless you're ingesting them. Toxins are poisons and if you ingested poison you'd need to go to a poison center. Things can become TOXIC if you overdose on them including water.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I would also argue that going keto 5 days and then splurging on the weekends is a recipe for binge eating. And the worst part is keto junk food products are higher in calories than their traditional counterparts.
I am all for using a ketogenic diet if you are focusing on whole foods. But going from a crap American diet to a crap ketogenic diet is still crap.
4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »I think as usual this comes down to personal preference/personal needs.
People may call keto a "fad" but there is nothing new or faddish about a low-carb diet. When it comes down to it, there isn't anything particularly shocking about it:
- eliminate (or at least strictly reduce) consumption of sugar, processed food, junk food in general
- control artificial sweeteners, if using any at all, to help control your sweet tooth/carb cravings
- eat real, wholesome, natural foods
The only real difference is the macro balance-- high protein/high fat. Honestly I don't see how that's any crazier than high carb/low fat diets. Fat and Protein are a requirement for the body while carbs are not. Grains in particular are not a nutritionally necessary component of any human diet, all grains are processed foods whether they're "brown" and "whole" or "white' and "refined" (if they weren't processed we wouldn't be able to digest them at all). You can get all the nutrition you might get from grains from other unprocessed sources: vegetables, fruits, and animal products.
I'm not saying everyone should have to exclude grains, particularly those on the healthier side-- if you want them, eat them. I'm not saying you have to eat meat/dairy if you don't want to, or if your unique health situations are better without them. People don't bat an eye when someone chooses not to eat meat, or dairy, but tell them you don't eat grains and you'll get strange looks or criticism or it is called a "fad".
Sure there are some health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of fat, but likewise there are health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of carbs. How individual bodies might respond to fat and carbs may play a big role in that as well. There is no one size fits all here; it's about picking what's best for you and your body.
I think the villainizing of low-carb diets came out of the low-fat craze, which turned out to be a complete disaster as a social experiment because it played a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics in western nations, esp. in children. And we now know a lot of the science that led to such "nutritional guidelines" that have been considered "conventional wisdom" was pretty faulty. They have overplayed the "evils" of fats and underplayed the "evils" of carbs for way too long, leaving a lot of people completely confused and frustrated and clueless about nutrition-- including, in many cases, people in the medical fields.
I've seen the benefits of a low-carb diet on my body and mind. You may find the same benefits on a more balanced diet, on a vegetarian diet, or vegan, or zero-carb carnivore diet.
The only advice I would push adamantly is to eat real foods (at least, mostly real) in a balance that works for you. The only "fad" diets I can think of are those that consist of mostly overly-processed food, stuffed with chemicals or supplements because it's nutritionally deficient on its own. Eating things like the mostly pill diets, the chemical-filled 50-ingredient diets (be they liquid or bars), concoctions like the "Jilly Juice" diet, the ice cube diet, the olive oil diet, the chocolate pudding diet... stuff like that I'm far wearier of than any diet that promotes real foods and a calorie deficit.
Calling it a fad isn't villainizing...being trendy is what makes it a fad...it's the very definition of a fad and it's not just pill diets. In the 90s Adkins was the craze...then everyone was doing South Beach...in 2010ish the dietary world was all about Paleo. Coming in and out of trendiness with the masses is what constitutes a fad, not that something has or has not existed at some point in time.
Also, there's never really been a "low fat craze"...recommendations to reduce fat started coming out in the 70s...we've done nothing but increase our consumption of dietary fat since then...so no, not really playing a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics since it didn't actually happen. Also, look at blue zones...these are some of the healthiest populations on the planet and eat high carbohydrate diets.
First of all, yes there was a low fat craze. I remember it. You can call it what you want. And yes, it did correlate and have some causation in the obesity epidemic.
The blue zone study was really faulty. He looked at 21 regions and ignored ones that didn't have the outcome he wanted. His data was faulty, like his research in Greece was during lent when most people are eating little meat for 40 days. Some of the zones were in areas where they did not keep very good tabs then on DOB, so the ages of some people were incorrect. Some of the zones ate more meat than was reported. And he failed to take into account non-dietary reasons that could contribute to longevity.
I wouldn't rely on the blue zone claims to prove anything.1 -
If you're spluring on carbs for the weekend, then you're NOT doing keto. You're doing a low carb diet overall since keto dieting involves basically no carbs.caldon4523 wrote: »I'm doing both Keto and intermitting fasting. I have never done Keto but I've done some sort of intermitting fasting for the last 7 years. This time around I'm being disciplined about both diets. I am fully aware and believe you cannot change your eating habits and be successful for the rest of your life. But the truth is the rest of my life may only be 20 years away.
I am hoping this time is different. I'm 66. When I began my diets I weighed 200lbs. I am in decent health except for high blood pressure and cholesterol which runs in my family. I am very active, which I have been all of my life. I've ran 5 marathons, and in the last 5 years hiked 610 miles on the Appalachian Trail and last year walked the Camino de Santiago French route which was about 500 miles.
I'm planning to hike the Portugues route next year. My focus is to remain healthy into my late 70s.
I've been on both diets now for 14 days. I have gone from 201 lbs to 190 today. To maintain this diet I've set a few parameters. I'm only doing the intermitting fasting (16-8) from Sunday evening at 6PM to Saturday morning 10 AM. I'm doing Keto Monday thru Friday.
This allows me to look forward to the weekend and splurge.
My first goal is to get down to 175 and maintain. My second goal is to remove all the toxins from my body in order to have a more perfect body, especially concerning digestion.
To keep me motivated, I'm always in the search for low carb foods, especially sweet ones. Yesterday I found Bryers Low Carb ice cream! Only 6 net carbs per serving!
In truth my plan is to be on both these diets for 2 months and see how it goes. After 2 months I will reevaluate my new eating habits and make appropriate adjustments. Follow me if you're interested. Jim
Second, you can't remove "toxins" unless you're ingesting them. Toxins are poisons and if you ingested poison you'd need to go to a poison center. Things can become TOXIC if you overdose on them including water.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I would also argue that going keto 5 days and then splurging on the weekends is a recipe for binge eating. And the worst part is keto junk food products are higher in calories than their traditional counterparts.
I am all for using a ketogenic diet if you are focusing on whole foods. But going from a crap American diet to a crap ketogenic diet is still crap.
Yeah I agree this is a bad way to go about ketogenic dieting.
The whole point of keto is to burn off the fuel from recently digested carbs, the body's preferred fuel because it is easiest to burn. It takes at least a couple of days to do that... it's around this point where people tend to get what is called the "keto flu", or you feel like you have flu symptoms because your body is out of readily available energy.
Then your body kicks into a ketogenic state to burn fat. The ultimate goal is to become fat adapted, a state where it burns fat fat more steadily and easily as fuel.
If you keep jumping on and off the carbs every week, you're not getting any benefit. your body's taking 3-4 days just to get into ketosis, and you're only in it for a day before you're taking yourself out of it. Then you are repeating the cycle every week, you will get a lot of keto flus and may never become fat adapted.
If you have trouble sticking to low-carb on a daily basis, try raising your fat. Fat is more satiating and holds off hunger longer. Try giving up added sugars and grains as well, which for some people trigger appetite and food cravings.
If you're in ketosis steadily after a few weeks there could be a day here and there where you indulge a little and it won't disrupt the state too much, or you'll slip back in easily. but every week is just too much.
If you don't wanna go steadily low carb you might want to switch to a controlled carb diet where you just keep your carb intake low and steady in general, but not necessarily as low as the low-carb diets like keto.
0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »First of all, yes there was a low fat craze.
100% there was a low fat craze in the 90's. Low fat and fat-free everything was all the rage. I definitely ate my share of fat-free salad dressing and dairy products back then. I don't eat them now.
I wouldn't blame anyone if they blocked out memories from this time. Fat-free cheese in the 90's was the stuff of nightmares. It tasted like plastic and didn't melt properly. I went to a picnic back then where the host cooked fat-free hot dogs. Those were like rubber. Maybe those products are better today. I'm not going to find out.
Thankfully the height of the fat-free craze also coincided with the time in my life when I was most serious about biking. I wasn't eating snack foods then so I wasn't tempted to try the fat-free potato chips which caused unfortunate digestive side effects in some people.
2 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »I think as usual this comes down to personal preference/personal needs.
People may call keto a "fad" but there is nothing new or faddish about a low-carb diet. When it comes down to it, there isn't anything particularly shocking about it:
- eliminate (or at least strictly reduce) consumption of sugar, processed food, junk food in general
- control artificial sweeteners, if using any at all, to help control your sweet tooth/carb cravings
- eat real, wholesome, natural foods
The only real difference is the macro balance-- high protein/high fat. Honestly I don't see how that's any crazier than high carb/low fat diets. Fat and Protein are a requirement for the body while carbs are not. Grains in particular are not a nutritionally necessary component of any human diet, all grains are processed foods whether they're "brown" and "whole" or "white' and "refined" (if they weren't processed we wouldn't be able to digest them at all). You can get all the nutrition you might get from grains from other unprocessed sources: vegetables, fruits, and animal products.
I'm not saying everyone should have to exclude grains, particularly those on the healthier side-- if you want them, eat them. I'm not saying you have to eat meat/dairy if you don't want to, or if your unique health situations are better without them. People don't bat an eye when someone chooses not to eat meat, or dairy, but tell them you don't eat grains and you'll get strange looks or criticism or it is called a "fad".
Sure there are some health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of fat, but likewise there are health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of carbs. How individual bodies might respond to fat and carbs may play a big role in that as well. There is no one size fits all here; it's about picking what's best for you and your body.
I think the villainizing of low-carb diets came out of the low-fat craze, which turned out to be a complete disaster as a social experiment because it played a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics in western nations, esp. in children. And we now know a lot of the science that led to such "nutritional guidelines" that have been considered "conventional wisdom" was pretty faulty. They have overplayed the "evils" of fats and underplayed the "evils" of carbs for way too long, leaving a lot of people completely confused and frustrated and clueless about nutrition-- including, in many cases, people in the medical fields.
I've seen the benefits of a low-carb diet on my body and mind. You may find the same benefits on a more balanced diet, on a vegetarian diet, or vegan, or zero-carb carnivore diet.
The only advice I would push adamantly is to eat real foods (at least, mostly real) in a balance that works for you. The only "fad" diets I can think of are those that consist of mostly overly-processed food, stuffed with chemicals or supplements because it's nutritionally deficient on its own. Eating things like the mostly pill diets, the chemical-filled 50-ingredient diets (be they liquid or bars), concoctions like the "Jilly Juice" diet, the ice cube diet, the olive oil diet, the chocolate pudding diet... stuff like that I'm far wearier of than any diet that promotes real foods and a calorie deficit.
Calling it a fad isn't villainizing...being trendy is what makes it a fad...it's the very definition of a fad and it's not just pill diets. In the 90s Adkins was the craze...then everyone was doing South Beach...in 2010ish the dietary world was all about Paleo. Coming in and out of trendiness with the masses is what constitutes a fad, not that something has or has not existed at some point in time.
Also, there's never really been a "low fat craze"...recommendations to reduce fat started coming out in the 70s...we've done nothing but increase our consumption of dietary fat since then...so no, not really playing a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics since it didn't actually happen. Also, look at blue zones...these are some of the healthiest populations on the planet and eat high carbohydrate diets.
First of all, yes there was a low fat craze. I remember it. You can call it what you want. And yes, it did correlate and have some causation in the obesity epidemic.
The blue zone study was really faulty. He looked at 21 regions and ignored ones that didn't have the outcome he wanted. His data was faulty, like his research in Greece was during lent when most people are eating little meat for 40 days. Some of the zones were in areas where they did not keep very good tabs then on DOB, so the ages of some people were incorrect. Some of the zones ate more meat than was reported. And he failed to take into account non-dietary reasons that could contribute to longevity.
I wouldn't rely on the blue zone claims to prove anything.
The blue zone study by Keyes was done in the 50's. That was a long time ago. The people in the blue zones live longer than average and are healthier than average. That hasn't changed. Others are now studying the blue zones--why, if it's all bunk?
I live in Italy and the majority of people are very thin, and they eat lots of carbs. I make pasta or risotto for 4 men everyday and they are thin.
I'm not against Keto, for those that find it effective. This is a Keto thread after all. But, your opinions on the blue zones I find a bit strange. I get that you like Keto and it works for you, but here, in Italy, we love our carbs--no guilt.2 -
Yes, there was a craze. The craze was a big bunch of blah-blah-blah, some sampling or even brief usage by many people of fat-free "food products" that - as you say - weren't very good . . . and a moderate, temporary down-blip in the actual total amount of fat that was produced, at least in the US.PeachHibiscus wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »First of all, yes there was a low fat craze.
100% there was a low fat craze in the 90's. Low fat and fat-free everything was all the rage. I definitely ate my share of fat-free salad dressing and dairy products back then. I don't eat them now.
I wouldn't blame anyone if they blocked out memories from this time. Fat-free cheese in the 90's was the stuff of nightmares. It tasted like plastic and didn't melt properly. I went to a picnic back then where the host cooked fat-free hot dogs. Those were like rubber. Maybe those products are better today. I'm not going to find out.
Thankfully the height of the fat-free craze also coincided with the time in my life when I was most serious about biking. I wasn't eating snack foods then so I wasn't tempted to try the fat-free potato chips which caused unfortunate digestive side effects in some people.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full
(which also says that polyunsaturated fats increased, saturated fats decreased, and non-communicable disease incidence increased).
Subjective perception of the craze is probably more dramatic than the impact on the average person's eating habits, as averaged over a typically chunk of a person's life (weeks to months). People don't mostly follow the recommendations, they follow their eating preferences, which are presumably more about taste, convenience, and perhaps some cultural factors.
Just for grins, from the same article:
I have nothing against people doing keto. That I don't personally choose to eat that way is also about personal eating preferences, not theory.
0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »I think as usual this comes down to personal preference/personal needs.
People may call keto a "fad" but there is nothing new or faddish about a low-carb diet. When it comes down to it, there isn't anything particularly shocking about it:
- eliminate (or at least strictly reduce) consumption of sugar, processed food, junk food in general
- control artificial sweeteners, if using any at all, to help control your sweet tooth/carb cravings
- eat real, wholesome, natural foods
The only real difference is the macro balance-- high protein/high fat. Honestly I don't see how that's any crazier than high carb/low fat diets. Fat and Protein are a requirement for the body while carbs are not. Grains in particular are not a nutritionally necessary component of any human diet, all grains are processed foods whether they're "brown" and "whole" or "white' and "refined" (if they weren't processed we wouldn't be able to digest them at all). You can get all the nutrition you might get from grains from other unprocessed sources: vegetables, fruits, and animal products.
I'm not saying everyone should have to exclude grains, particularly those on the healthier side-- if you want them, eat them. I'm not saying you have to eat meat/dairy if you don't want to, or if your unique health situations are better without them. People don't bat an eye when someone chooses not to eat meat, or dairy, but tell them you don't eat grains and you'll get strange looks or criticism or it is called a "fad".
Sure there are some health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of fat, but likewise there are health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of carbs. How individual bodies might respond to fat and carbs may play a big role in that as well. There is no one size fits all here; it's about picking what's best for you and your body.
I think the villainizing of low-carb diets came out of the low-fat craze, which turned out to be a complete disaster as a social experiment because it played a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics in western nations, esp. in children. And we now know a lot of the science that led to such "nutritional guidelines" that have been considered "conventional wisdom" was pretty faulty. They have overplayed the "evils" of fats and underplayed the "evils" of carbs for way too long, leaving a lot of people completely confused and frustrated and clueless about nutrition-- including, in many cases, people in the medical fields.
I've seen the benefits of a low-carb diet on my body and mind. You may find the same benefits on a more balanced diet, on a vegetarian diet, or vegan, or zero-carb carnivore diet.
The only advice I would push adamantly is to eat real foods (at least, mostly real) in a balance that works for you. The only "fad" diets I can think of are those that consist of mostly overly-processed food, stuffed with chemicals or supplements because it's nutritionally deficient on its own. Eating things like the mostly pill diets, the chemical-filled 50-ingredient diets (be they liquid or bars), concoctions like the "Jilly Juice" diet, the ice cube diet, the olive oil diet, the chocolate pudding diet... stuff like that I'm far wearier of than any diet that promotes real foods and a calorie deficit.
Calling it a fad isn't villainizing...being trendy is what makes it a fad...it's the very definition of a fad and it's not just pill diets. In the 90s Adkins was the craze...then everyone was doing South Beach...in 2010ish the dietary world was all about Paleo. Coming in and out of trendiness with the masses is what constitutes a fad, not that something has or has not existed at some point in time.
Also, there's never really been a "low fat craze"...recommendations to reduce fat started coming out in the 70s...we've done nothing but increase our consumption of dietary fat since then...so no, not really playing a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics since it didn't actually happen. Also, look at blue zones...these are some of the healthiest populations on the planet and eat high carbohydrate diets.
First of all, yes there was a low fat craze. I remember it. You can call it what you want. And yes, it did correlate and have some causation in the obesity epidemic.
The blue zone study was really faulty. He looked at 21 regions and ignored ones that didn't have the outcome he wanted. His data was faulty, like his research in Greece was during lent when most people are eating little meat for 40 days. Some of the zones were in areas where they did not keep very good tabs then on DOB, so the ages of some people were incorrect. Some of the zones ate more meat than was reported. And he failed to take into account non-dietary reasons that could contribute to longevity.
I wouldn't rely on the blue zone claims to prove anything.
The blue zone study by Keyes was done in the 50's. That was a long time ago. The people in the blue zones live longer than average and are healthier than average. That hasn't changed. Others are now studying the blue zones--why, if it's all bunk?
I live in Italy and the majority of people are very thin, and they eat lots of carbs. I make pasta or risotto for 4 men everyday and they are thin.
I'm not against Keto, for those that find it effective. This is a Keto thread after all. But, your opinions on the blue zones I find a bit strange. I get that you like Keto and it works for you, but here, in Italy, we love our carbs--no guilt.
1st... The bunk about the blue zones is the claim that it is evidence that the longevity of these areas is due to any particular kind of diet. It's been debunked pretty well.
2nd... I don't do keto, and I have never said keto was better than any other diet. I have REPEATEDLY said people should find their own sweet spot-- those are exact words I frequently use.
I've specifically said I changed up my macros experimenting with them, I found what worked for me. I explain this happens to be very similar to keto, so people will understand the gist.
3rd... my family is from Italy, both sides (Naples, Palermo). I grew up in NYC raised by Italian immigrants and pretty much all we ate was pasta. If you can eat pasta, eat it.
Me saying that there are some people who cannot eat pasta/carbs (which is true), or that pasta is not a necessary part of a human diet (which is true), and if a person can't eat it they can learn to live without it (also true), is NOT the same thing as telling everyone that they shouldn't eat pasta.
You understand, right? That some people DO have problems eating grains and heavy carbs? That some people DO need to hear that there are alternative ways to live and they don't need to be afraid of beef or butter or eggs or cutting out foods that have caused them addictions/diabetes/other problems? That NOT EVERYONE can handle carbs even in moderation, and maybe they never realized that or thought about it? That maybe it's good for SOME people to consider, which, in the first place, they have to hear it from someone who has been there/done that?
I don't get you-- 20 people will give their opinions on a question. You single out mine to complain, though. If you disagree with me, that's fine, I'm still entitled to my opinion and the people initiating the conversation are entitled to listen to alternate opinions.
I get it-- you like carbs, you like plant-based diets. I find it a bit strange myself, however, that you'll say there is nothing wrong with a different opinion, yet you can't let one go by without jumping in to contradict. Then you accuse me of telling everyone they can't eat carbs? FIND ME ONE POST WHERE I SAID THAT... JUST ONE.
No guilt here, either.1 -
Yes, there was a craze. The craze was a big bunch of blah-blah-blah, some sampling or even brief usage by many people of fat-free "food products" that - as you say - weren't very good . . . and a moderate, temporary down-blip in the actual total amount of fat that was produced, at least in the US.PeachHibiscus wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »First of all, yes there was a low fat craze.
100% there was a low fat craze in the 90's. Low fat and fat-free everything was all the rage. I definitely ate my share of fat-free salad dressing and dairy products back then. I don't eat them now.
I wouldn't blame anyone if they blocked out memories from this time. Fat-free cheese in the 90's was the stuff of nightmares. It tasted like plastic and didn't melt properly. I went to a picnic back then where the host cooked fat-free hot dogs. Those were like rubber. Maybe those products are better today. I'm not going to find out.
Thankfully the height of the fat-free craze also coincided with the time in my life when I was most serious about biking. I wasn't eating snack foods then so I wasn't tempted to try the fat-free potato chips which caused unfortunate digestive side effects in some people.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full
(which also says that polyunsaturated fats increased, saturated fats decreased, and non-communicable disease incidence increased).
Subjective perception of the craze is probably more dramatic than the impact on the average person's eating habits, as averaged over a typically chunk of a person's life (weeks to months). People don't mostly follow the recommendations, they follow their eating preferences, which are presumably more about taste, convenience, and perhaps some cultural factors.
Just for grins, from the same article:
I have nothing against people doing keto. That I don't personally choose to eat that way is also about personal eating preferences, not theory.
I disagree that it wasn't that impactful. Sure, there were still people who ate what they wanted. However, there were plenty of people who were actually trying to follow guidelines that turned out to be faulty. Modern-day guidelines are STILL misleading people, based on much of the information of that time.
neanderthin made a very good post about this in the thread Best macros for weight loss.
I think this is how to link it but just in case I mess up: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10899704/best-macros-for-weight-loss#latest0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »
Yes, there was a craze. The craze was a big bunch of blah-blah-blah, some sampling or even brief usage by many people of fat-free "food products" that - as you say - weren't very good . . . and a moderate, temporary down-blip in the actual total amount of fat that was produced, at least in the US.PeachHibiscus wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »First of all, yes there was a low fat craze.
100% there was a low fat craze in the 90's. Low fat and fat-free everything was all the rage. I definitely ate my share of fat-free salad dressing and dairy products back then. I don't eat them now.
I wouldn't blame anyone if they blocked out memories from this time. Fat-free cheese in the 90's was the stuff of nightmares. It tasted like plastic and didn't melt properly. I went to a picnic back then where the host cooked fat-free hot dogs. Those were like rubber. Maybe those products are better today. I'm not going to find out.
Thankfully the height of the fat-free craze also coincided with the time in my life when I was most serious about biking. I wasn't eating snack foods then so I wasn't tempted to try the fat-free potato chips which caused unfortunate digestive side effects in some people.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full
(which also says that polyunsaturated fats increased, saturated fats decreased, and non-communicable disease incidence increased).
Subjective perception of the craze is probably more dramatic than the impact on the average person's eating habits, as averaged over a typically chunk of a person's life (weeks to months). People don't mostly follow the recommendations, they follow their eating preferences, which are presumably more about taste, convenience, and perhaps some cultural factors.
Just for grins, from the same article:
I have nothing against people doing keto. That I don't personally choose to eat that way is also about personal eating preferences, not theory.
I disagree that it wasn't that impactful. Sure, there were still people who ate what they wanted. However, there were plenty of people who were actually trying to follow guidelines that turned out to be faulty. Modern-day guidelines are STILL misleading people, based on much of the information of that time.
neanderthin made a very good post about this in the thread Best macros for weight loss.
I think this is how to link it but just in case I mess up: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10899704/best-macros-for-weight-loss#latest
Neanderthin's post there seems to me to be mostly a critique of ultra-processed foods, and attributing modern diet-related problems to those. His argument there is at least somewhat consistent with the data in those graphs, for example the polyunsaturated oils increasing more than saturated fats.
I don't doubt that some people do try to follow the guidelines being promulgated at any given time. My point was that the push for low fat didn't seem to result in meaningfully less fat being consumed population wide (per some reasonable statistical data), and what effect there was was fairly small and seemingly quite temporary.
Heavily marketed highly-processed so-called "hyperpalatable" foods are very popular, and I think that's more because of average people's taste and convenience preferences than because they're listening to experts. (I think those preferences are more conditioned by marketers than by experts.) Sometimes the products have virtue-labels slapped on (like the low fat food products) and some rearranging of ingredients to pay lip service to popular understandings of expert advice, and that's about it.1 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »
Yes, there was a craze. The craze was a big bunch of blah-blah-blah, some sampling or even brief usage by many people of fat-free "food products" that - as you say - weren't very good . . . and a moderate, temporary down-blip in the actual total amount of fat that was produced, at least in the US.PeachHibiscus wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »First of all, yes there was a low fat craze.
100% there was a low fat craze in the 90's. Low fat and fat-free everything was all the rage. I definitely ate my share of fat-free salad dressing and dairy products back then. I don't eat them now.
I wouldn't blame anyone if they blocked out memories from this time. Fat-free cheese in the 90's was the stuff of nightmares. It tasted like plastic and didn't melt properly. I went to a picnic back then where the host cooked fat-free hot dogs. Those were like rubber. Maybe those products are better today. I'm not going to find out.
Thankfully the height of the fat-free craze also coincided with the time in my life when I was most serious about biking. I wasn't eating snack foods then so I wasn't tempted to try the fat-free potato chips which caused unfortunate digestive side effects in some people.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full
(which also says that polyunsaturated fats increased, saturated fats decreased, and non-communicable disease incidence increased).
Subjective perception of the craze is probably more dramatic than the impact on the average person's eating habits, as averaged over a typically chunk of a person's life (weeks to months). People don't mostly follow the recommendations, they follow their eating preferences, which are presumably more about taste, convenience, and perhaps some cultural factors.
Just for grins, from the same article:
I have nothing against people doing keto. That I don't personally choose to eat that way is also about personal eating preferences, not theory.
I disagree that it wasn't that impactful. Sure, there were still people who ate what they wanted. However, there were plenty of people who were actually trying to follow guidelines that turned out to be faulty. Modern-day guidelines are STILL misleading people, based on much of the information of that time.
neanderthin made a very good post about this in the thread Best macros for weight loss.
I think this is how to link it but just in case I mess up: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10899704/best-macros-for-weight-loss#latest
Neanderthin's post there seems to me to be mostly a critique of ultra-processed foods, and attributing modern diet-related problems to those. His argument there is at least somewhat consistent with the data in those graphs, for example the polyunsaturated oils increasing more than saturated fats.
I don't doubt that some people do try to follow the guidelines being promulgated at any given time. My point was that the push for low fat didn't seem to result in meaningfully less fat being consumed population wide (per some reasonable statistical data), and what effect there was was fairly small and seemingly quite temporary.
Heavily marketed highly-processed so-called "hyperpalatable" foods are very popular, and I think that's more because of average people's taste and convenience preferences than because they're listening to experts. (I think those preferences are more conditioned by marketers than by experts.) Sometimes the products have virtue-labels slapped on (like the low fat food products) and some rearranging of ingredients to pay lip service to popular understandings of expert advice, and that's about it.
Mmmhmmm.
Again, disagree. I do think the low-fat craze played a role.
I've read articles, studies, seen documentaries, etc. on all sides of the spectrum, from those advocating strict vegan diets to those advocating strict carnivore diets. I've read the ADA and the AHA diets and discussed them with a nutritionist and worked with them to design how I should eat, and I've seen others with data that goes against all their recommendations. I remember growing up and seeing the fear of fat and the food industry's pushing of unhealthy foods disguising them as healthy, and trying to use the government data as 'proof' of what you should be eating. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I'm not an idiot either who can't read a study and spot obvious flaws, either.
And while I'm skeptical to an extent of all data on all sides because there's always an agenda, I tend to fall more somewhere in the middle: I think it played a role, not as big as some claim, not as small as others claim.
Can we agree to disagree or do we have to start making a job out of this, pulling up and posting dueling studies now?
0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »I think as usual this comes down to personal preference/personal needs.
People may call keto a "fad" but there is nothing new or faddish about a low-carb diet. When it comes down to it, there isn't anything particularly shocking about it:
- eliminate (or at least strictly reduce) consumption of sugar, processed food, junk food in general
- control artificial sweeteners, if using any at all, to help control your sweet tooth/carb cravings
- eat real, wholesome, natural foods
The only real difference is the macro balance-- high protein/high fat. Honestly I don't see how that's any crazier than high carb/low fat diets. Fat and Protein are a requirement for the body while carbs are not. Grains in particular are not a nutritionally necessary component of any human diet, all grains are processed foods whether they're "brown" and "whole" or "white' and "refined" (if they weren't processed we wouldn't be able to digest them at all). You can get all the nutrition you might get from grains from other unprocessed sources: vegetables, fruits, and animal products.
I'm not saying everyone should have to exclude grains, particularly those on the healthier side-- if you want them, eat them. I'm not saying you have to eat meat/dairy if you don't want to, or if your unique health situations are better without them. People don't bat an eye when someone chooses not to eat meat, or dairy, but tell them you don't eat grains and you'll get strange looks or criticism or it is called a "fad".
Sure there are some health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of fat, but likewise there are health issues that can arise from eating too much/the wrong kind of carbs. How individual bodies might respond to fat and carbs may play a big role in that as well. There is no one size fits all here; it's about picking what's best for you and your body.
I think the villainizing of low-carb diets came out of the low-fat craze, which turned out to be a complete disaster as a social experiment because it played a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics in western nations, esp. in children. And we now know a lot of the science that led to such "nutritional guidelines" that have been considered "conventional wisdom" was pretty faulty. They have overplayed the "evils" of fats and underplayed the "evils" of carbs for way too long, leaving a lot of people completely confused and frustrated and clueless about nutrition-- including, in many cases, people in the medical fields.
I've seen the benefits of a low-carb diet on my body and mind. You may find the same benefits on a more balanced diet, on a vegetarian diet, or vegan, or zero-carb carnivore diet.
The only advice I would push adamantly is to eat real foods (at least, mostly real) in a balance that works for you. The only "fad" diets I can think of are those that consist of mostly overly-processed food, stuffed with chemicals or supplements because it's nutritionally deficient on its own. Eating things like the mostly pill diets, the chemical-filled 50-ingredient diets (be they liquid or bars), concoctions like the "Jilly Juice" diet, the ice cube diet, the olive oil diet, the chocolate pudding diet... stuff like that I'm far wearier of than any diet that promotes real foods and a calorie deficit.
Calling it a fad isn't villainizing...being trendy is what makes it a fad...it's the very definition of a fad and it's not just pill diets. In the 90s Adkins was the craze...then everyone was doing South Beach...in 2010ish the dietary world was all about Paleo. Coming in and out of trendiness with the masses is what constitutes a fad, not that something has or has not existed at some point in time.
Also, there's never really been a "low fat craze"...recommendations to reduce fat started coming out in the 70s...we've done nothing but increase our consumption of dietary fat since then...so no, not really playing a role in the obesity and diabetes epidemics since it didn't actually happen. Also, look at blue zones...these are some of the healthiest populations on the planet and eat high carbohydrate diets.
First of all, yes there was a low fat craze. I remember it. You can call it what you want. And yes, it did correlate and have some causation in the obesity epidemic.
The blue zone study was really faulty. He looked at 21 regions and ignored ones that didn't have the outcome he wanted. His data was faulty, like his research in Greece was during lent when most people are eating little meat for 40 days. Some of the zones were in areas where they did not keep very good tabs then on DOB, so the ages of some people were incorrect. Some of the zones ate more meat than was reported. And he failed to take into account non-dietary reasons that could contribute to longevity.
I wouldn't rely on the blue zone claims to prove anything.
The blue zone study by Keyes was done in the 50's. That was a long time ago. The people in the blue zones live longer than average and are healthier than average. That hasn't changed. Others are now studying the blue zones--why, if it's all bunk?
I live in Italy and the majority of people are very thin, and they eat lots of carbs. I make pasta or risotto for 4 men everyday and they are thin.
I'm not against Keto, for those that find it effective. This is a Keto thread after all. But, your opinions on the blue zones I find a bit strange. I get that you like Keto and it works for you, but here, in Italy, we love our carbs--no guilt.
1st... The bunk about the blue zones is the claim that it is evidence that the longevity of these areas is due to any particular kind of diet. It's been debunked pretty well.
2nd... I don't do keto, and I have never said keto was better than any other diet. I have REPEATEDLY said people should find their own sweet spot-- those are exact words I frequently use.
I've specifically said I changed up my macros experimenting with them, I found what worked for me. I explain this happens to be very similar to keto, so people will understand the gist.
3rd... my family is from Italy, both sides (Naples, Palermo). I grew up in NYC raised by Italian immigrants and pretty much all we ate was pasta. If you can eat pasta, eat it.
Me saying that there are some people who cannot eat pasta/carbs (which is true), or that pasta is not a necessary part of a human diet (which is true), and if a person can't eat it they can learn to live without it (also true), is NOT the same thing as telling everyone that they shouldn't eat pasta.
You understand, right? That some people DO have problems eating grains and heavy carbs? That some people DO need to hear that there are alternative ways to live and they don't need to be afraid of beef or butter or eggs or cutting out foods that have caused them addictions/diabetes/other problems? That NOT EVERYONE can handle carbs even in moderation, and maybe they never realized that or thought about it? That maybe it's good for SOME people to consider, which, in the first place, they have to hear it from someone who has been there/done that?
I don't get you-- 20 people will give their opinions on a question. You single out mine to complain, though. If you disagree with me, that's fine, I'm still entitled to my opinion and the people initiating the conversation are entitled to listen to alternate opinions.
I get it-- you like carbs, you like plant-based diets. I find it a bit strange myself, however, that you'll say there is nothing wrong with a different opinion, yet you can't let one go by without jumping in to contradict. Then you accuse me of telling everyone they can't eat carbs? FIND ME ONE POST WHERE I SAID THAT... JUST ONE.
No guilt here, either.
0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »
Yes, there was a craze. The craze was a big bunch of blah-blah-blah, some sampling or even brief usage by many people of fat-free "food products" that - as you sayPeachHibiscus wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »First of all, yes there was a low fat craze.
100% there was a low fat craze in the 90's. Low fat and fat-free everything was all the rage. I definitely ate my share of fat-free salad dressing and dairy products back then. I don't eat them now.
I wouldn't blame anyone if they blocked out memories from this time. Fat-free cheese in the 90's was the stuff of nightmares. It tasted like plastic and didn't melt properly. I went to a picnic back then where the host cooked fat-free hot dogs. Those were like rubber. Maybe those products are better today. I'm not going to find out.
Thankfully the height of the fat-free craze also coincided with the time in my life when I was most serious about biking. I wasn't eating snack foods then so I wasn't tempted to try the fat-free potato chips which caused unfortunate digestive side effects in some people.
weren't very good . . . and a moderate, temporary down-blip in the actual total amount of fat that was produced, at least in the US.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full
(which also says that polyunsaturated fats increased, saturated fats decreased, and non-communicable disease incidence increased).
Subjective perception of the craze is probably more dramatic than the impact on the average person's eating habits, as averaged over a typically chunk of a person's life (weeks to months). People don't mostly follow the recommendations, they follow their eating preferences, which are presumably more about taste, convenience, and perhaps some cultural factors.
Just for grins, from the same article:
I have nothing against people doing keto. That I don't personally choose to eat that way is also about personal eating preferences, not theory.
I disagree that it wasn't that impactful. Sure, there were still people who ate what they wanted. However, there were plenty of people who were actually trying to follow guidelines that turned out to be faulty. Modern-day guidelines are STILL misleading people, based on much of the information of that time.
neanderthin made a very good post about this in the thread Best macros for weight loss.
I think this is how to link it but just in case I mess up: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10899704/best-macros-for-weight-loss#latest
Neanderthin's post there seems to me to be mostly a critique of ultra-processed foods, and attributing modern diet-related problems to those. His argument there is at least somewhat consistent with the data in those graphs, for example the polyunsaturated oils increasing more than saturated fats.
I don't doubt that some people do try to follow the guidelines being promulgated at any given time. My point was that the push for low fat didn't seem to result in meaningfully less fat being consumed population wide (per some reasonable statistical data), and what effect there was was fairly small and seemingly quite temporary.
Heavily marketed highly-processed so-called "hyperpalatable" foods are very popular, and I think that's more because of average people's taste and convenience preferences than because they're listening to experts. (I think those preferences are more conditioned by marketers than by experts.) Sometimes the products have virtue-labels slapped on (like the low fat food products) and some rearranging of ingredients to pay lip service to popular understandings of expert advice, and that's about it.
Mmmhmmm.
Again, disagree. I do think the low-fat craze played a role.
I've read articles, studies, seen documentaries, etc. on all sides of the spectrum, from those advocating strict vegan diets to those advocating strict carnivore diets. I've read the ADA and the AHA diets and discussed them with a nutritionist and worked with them to design how I should eat, and I've seen others with data that goes against all their recommendations. I remember growing up and seeing the fear of fat and the food industry's pushing of unhealthy foods disguising them as healthy, and trying to use the government data as 'proof' of what you should be eating. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I'm not an idiot either who can't read a study and spot obvious flaws, either.
And while I'm skeptical to an extent of all data on all sides because there's always an agenda, I tend to fall more somewhere in the middle: I think it played a role, not as big as some claim, not as small as others claim.
Can we agree to disagree or do we have to start making a job out of this, pulling up and posting dueling studies now?
Compared to the 60's and 70's American's are eating less fat going from around 42% to about 35% now. It was the overall messaging that cholesterol and saturated fat where killing people and everyone needs to eat less natural fat because that is where it comes from. The business end of that solution was quick and easy and it was partially hydrogenizes polyunsaturated fat known as trans fats, good bye bad animal fat and meet the new alternative.
Now what? What meat do people buy, who wants to die of heart disease, right. People switched from beef, because that was pretty much the go to protein in the USA for an animal product and switched to mostly boneless, skinless chicken breast, I mean people were even afraid to eat thighs because it had, you know some white stuff on it, called fat and skin which also had fat. Beef consumption has fallen by 35%, although it is on the rise again and chicken consumption went up 300 %.
Telling people to consume 6 to 11 servings of grains was another message that also created a problem. What does that mean in a practical sense to a US population. Of course whole grains is where the nutrition is but it's a totally foreign product to the general population for the most part because that would require consumption of grains like bulgar, millet, farro, brown rice, oats and barley as a few examples which also created a nutritional problem with a plethora of nutritional deficiencies, so to circumvent that the USDA advised that people eat about half of those grain in refined flour like breakfast cereals and bread because they can be fortified and of course eating refine flour on it's own as a food product isn't very appealing but tastes pretty good when you add sugar, fat and salt and funnily enough these were 3 thing that the USDA wanted people to consume less of with the first Guidelines. Now of course the average American is consuming around 500 more calories a day then did before all this hub bub about how cows will kill everyone and fill their arteries with the dreaded life threatening cholesterol and saturated fat. Reminds me of Newtons 3rd law of motion; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This talking point that people aren't consuming any more sugar than 1970 is really not looking at all the data. Yes actual sugar hasn't gone up much since the 70's that being beet and cane sugar but guess what did enter the food supply, you guess it, HFCS which started to enter the food supply in 1970, coincidence, I think not. Sugar consumption did level off and has come down (finally drinking calories as a bad idea seems to have sunk in) but it's still high and the average American is consuming around 150lbs a year or over 2 lbs a week.
Moral of my story is, the USDA, gov't, and the industrial food complex can stay out of my kitchen and don't tell me what to eat. have a good food day.1 -
Ive been keto for years now. I know I will never eat carbs the way I used to. But, eating carbs, I can't stop eating. It's a combo of impact on blood sugar combined with the fact that carbs do nothing for me nutritionally and when I am getting calories from carbs, in order to get enough protein and iron, I eat too many calories to maintaining a reasonable weight let alone lose.
I worked so hard for decades, tried various diets. None helped. When I was able to go to a gym and lift regularly I could lose a little or at least maintain, but I never got under 245lbs.
On keto, I went from 315 to 173. For the last few years, to keep my body guessing and practice switching fuel sources, I have had a three day refeed where I eat all the carbs once per month.
My plan at this point is to get to 160 which gives me the space to switch from keto to low carb, knowing there will be weight gain with that switch. I will always avoid sugar and grains. It's too many calories for not enough benifit and I am not active enough to use extra calories.
If you can be successful without giving up carbs, do it for sure! The restrictions take a lot of adjusting.
But for those of us who weren't able to get there other ways, keto can be kinda miraculous. Once you get used to it and know what you can eat, imo, it's easier than anything else I ever tried. The switch is hard though.2 -
Keto depends on the person.
You can do a healthy Keto. For some diabetics, it is a life-saver. But for some people, Keto makes them feel bad.
Keto done responsibly is fine.
Some people do Keto--but they don't do it in a healthy way.
It's not for me---but whatever took works. I figure it is no different than veganism. As long as you do it in a healthy way--then do it. If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. It's not for everyone. People with kidney issues probably shouldn't do Keto without a doctor's okay. I have diabetic friends who either do modified or cycled keto---and it has helped them.
So I don't say no to Keto. I say not for me. It isn't a cure-all. But if you have diabetes or insulin resistance--it might help more. But even if you do Keto--you need to watch your calories and try to do a healthy version.
Nothing but butter and bacon will eventually be a bad experience. Responsible Keto is dependent on the person and goal.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions