[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's actually an inflammation benefit you get from keto/no carb diets. We don't know enough about metabolic pathways to know why, but it does happen. Doctors go as far as to prescribe keto diets to treat certain inflammation prone forms of epilepsy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796387/

...in rats. Not particularly relevant although obviously research is going to start there and branch out. And as of yet we really haven't seen any proof of long term benefits in a "regular" population. See below for more.

Originally Posted by Azure

The restriction of carbs / eating window helps them fight their craving and gain a better relationship with food. I.E. they find it a lot easier to eat healthy. Over time this becomes habit and is even easier to manage.

The reason MOST other diets don't work, is because simply starving your body by reducing calories / calorie counting, but not altering the types in food you eat, or forcing your body to adapt to said foods doesn't solve the metabolism or cravings problem.

That is why most people who go on the hundreds of other diets out there tend to fail about fall back on their old habits. They are fighting against their body craving food, something that the modern diet and food availability has given us. Some win the fight, most lose, and more and more are losing.

I don't have much experience with keto, but I do know a lot of people who have had great success with it, but with intermittent fasting, EVERY SINGLE person that I know who has stuck with it for at least month absolutely loves it, finds it easy to follow and adopts it as part of their lifestyle. They lose weight, become healthier, eat healthier simply because their body is not craving food anymore, etc, etc. The benefits are enormous.

The stupid argument that it is all about the calories you eat and it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, or WHEN you eat as long as you eat x amount of calories is as equally stupid as the argument that saturated fats are bad. Obesity is skyrocketing and yet people still peddle that BS.

The 'National Lipid Association Nutrition and Lifestyle Task Force' sounded ridiculous so I looked them up. https://www.lipid.org/about. Sounds legit and this is a great review.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...33287419302673

Key points:

Long-term participation in any weight loss intervention is difficult, but adherence to the assigned macronutrient distribution (ie, CHO, protein, and fat) is lower with low-CHO and, especially, very-low-CHO diets.

So what you're saying about maintaining a keto diet is objectively wrong.

Other points.

Longer-term (>6 months) results suggest that low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets may result in weight loss that is equivalent to that of HCLF diets.

When talking about a reduction in systemic inflammation (CRP is a measure of that):

Weight loss lowers CRP. However, current evidence does not support a difference between low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets compared with high-CHO, low-fat diets on the effects on CRP.

For long-term weight maintenance and CV health, it is recommended to gradually increase CHO intake. An emphasis should be placed on CHO foods associated with reduced cardiometabolic risk, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes.

Originally Posted by Azure

The argument that there is no evidence to say that keto or intermittent fasting is any worse / better than any other diet is based around the fact that as long as you eat within your calorie range you will lose weight and therefore why would less than 50 carbs per day, or eating periods make a difference.

Again, there are researchers out there who are working with patients that are on fasting plans or keto plans, and the results they are getting is amazing.

Dr Rhonda Patrick
Dr Jason Fung

Look them up and tell me that you'll take a dumb Stanford study over what they have researched.

Humans were not designed to eat 5-6 meals per day (another lie pushed on us by the food industry). Our ancestors did not have access to that kind of food, and therefore they ate maybe once per day, or a few times per week at best.

We are just scraping the surface in finding out what the benefits of fasting are for humans. Again, find me one person who has stuck with an intermittent fasting program for at least a month, and has followed it CORRECTLY, where every single health marker you could analyze hasn't been overwhelmingly positive.

Are you making money from people switching to keto?

I'm not entirely sure why you have such a high stake in this. That's awesome that it worked for you but much of what you've said is counter to our current research on low carbohydrate diets. Making 'facts' up doesn't really help your cause.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

It's a stupid argument because it's not the argument that is actually being had. Of course 1 calorie is 1 calorie in the same way 1 millilitre is 1 millilitre. It's a unit of measurement.

What is actually being talked about is the difference between macronutrients as caloric sources. Protein and carbs are ~4 kCal per gram, while fat is ~9 kCal per gram.

The thermic effect of food is the caloric cost of digesting and processing different macronutrients. Protein has a thermic effect upward of five times greater than carbohydrates or fat. Simple carbohydrates do not need to be broken down as much as complex carbs do, fast burning versus slow burning source of energy. All of this has the end result of how sated you feel and how quickly you feel hungry again.

Yes, calories in, calories out is still the basis by which weight loss and gain works; you can out-eat your TDEE on keto, paleo, eating vegan, carnivore diet, the list goes on. I also know it can be made easier or harder based on what macronutrient sources I pick when cutting.

I know what you meant, but people need to stop saying this. Calories are a unit of measurement. Calorie sources are not equal. Not making this distinction opens the door for all sorts of stupid and disingenuous arguments on the subject.

You know this is irrelevant because the thermic effect of protein, for example, is accounted for in its calories?