Anybody else on a keto diet?

[csnarpy]

Wow, with all the wheat, grains, flour and sugar replacements. It is not hard at all to reach 2000 carbs. It’s all about what you eat not how much.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Most people eating low carb are eating high fat, so it's very easy to get enough (or too many) calories.
If you reverse your own personal carb vs fat ratio (200g/90g) to (90g/200g), you'd jump from approximately 1610 to 2160 calories by that switch alone.

Ty I have so many questions regarding diet lol somedays I just feel so confused on what I should be doing

[Azure]

I would say if you go low carb it is actually easier to reach 2000 calories. Especially if you make a concentrated effort to find foods that are calorie dense, and make them part of your diet.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would say if you go low carb it is actually easier to reach 2000 calories. Especially if you make a concentrated effort to find foods that are calorie dense, and make them part of your diet.

Fat-bombs.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Robo

Ty I have so many questions regarding diet lol somedays I just feel so confused on what I should be doing

A huge game changer for me has been using the My Fitness Pal app to log my calories, it's even more important than my workouts.

I track every single calorie I eat or drink even down to cooking oil sprays when making eggs.
Most foods are loaded into it already and you can just scan the barcodes to import the data as you consume things.

It's very eye opening to see what foods have what calories and macros and how much I was actually eating (or often drinking) in ignorance.
For example making changes like using mustard and hot sauces instead of ketchup and bbq sauces will greatly impact needless sugar calories and the app helped my see things like that.

I use a 5 calorie coconut oil cooking spray when making eggs, instead of a tbls of olive oil that's a whopping 120 calories.

The goals can be adjusted for any diet type, so even if doing keto it will be very very helpful to make sure you're low enough on carbs to ensure ketosis.

After locking in this habit I bought a food scale too for next phase accuracy. Making the whole thing scientific and mathematical is actually pretty fun.

[TheSutterDynasty]

I'd love to see a shred of evidence that shows weight loss is anything more than calories out > calories in.

Everyone loves to talk about 'quality' of those calories, which is obviously an important factor for your health. Weight loss though? Calories out > calories in.

And besides, we're talking about a diet that purposefully removes quality calories in whole grains/oats/etc.

[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?

[Azure]

Same old response. At least this time it isn't a stupid driveby like you do in every other thread you respond in.

At the end of the day you can post your great sources and spectacular research, but it has been known for many years that big food has influenced the research around food, food guides, what makes people 'fat', and what people need to do to lose weight.

Are we still claiming that people need to eat 400 carbs per day, 5-6 meals for satiety, fat is bad and watch that dietary cholesterol? Because all those things have been pushed onto the general public for the past 40 years and obesity and heart disease rates have skyrocketed.

In the meantime I'll be here in the group where you can see what actually makes a long-term difference in people's lives, and where cutting edge research is being done by people smarter than you and the researchers behind every study you cite.

I invite anyone who still thinks calories are equal, and that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (like honestly, are we STILL going to go down that road after 40 years of terrible health results) to read this.

The most important source of error is that reducing ‘Calories In’ leads to a reduction in metabolic rate, or ‘Calories Out’. A 30% reduction in calorie intake is quickly met with a decrease in basal metabolic rate of 30%. The net result is that no weight is lost.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/the-calorie-debacle

[Discoste]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

I'd love to see a shred of evidence that shows weight loss is anything more than calories out > calories in.

Everyone loves to talk about 'quality' of those calories, which is obviously an important factor for your health. Weight loss though? Calories out > calories in.

And besides, we're talking about a diet that purposefully removes quality calories in whole grains/oats/etc.

Slight caveat - caloric restriction only works so far due to metabolic adaptation. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the daily expected energy expenditure gradually lowers over time. So empirically speaking, can't lose a pound a week for 52 weeks at constant restriction.
Of course you can manage your diet through various "periodizations". To achieve your goal, be it weight loss, aesthetics, performance, but it takes more a holistic approach because (it was mentioned in earlier posts) people also have a unhealthy (mental) association with food that should be addressed too.

Alex Hutchinson has a good book where he goes into the science put proper context to it and draws the path to our common folklore/myths. One chapter is on "Fuel". Here's a link with the chapter excerpt:
https://thewalrus.ca/the-food-science-behind-endurance/

TDLR:

To judge from the polarized debate on internet forums and social-media networks, you might think you have to pick a side: you either burn fat or carbohydrate, and woe to you if you make the wrong choice. In reality, we all use both. And given the complementary strengths and weaknesses of the two options—carbohydrate as a fast fuel with limited storage capability, fat as an inexhaustible but rate-limited alternative, it makes sense to aim for what Louise Burke, of the Australian Institute of Sport, calls “metabolic flexibility,” by maximizing both fuel pathways.

Early experiments in the first half of the twentieth century showed that the balance between fat and carbohydrate use depends on how hard you’re working. During easy exercise, like a gentle walk, you burn mostly fat from the supplies circulating in your bloodstream. As you speed up, you begin to add more carbohydrate to the mix, and by the time you’re panting heavily, the proportions have flipped and you’re burning mostly carbohydrate. The precise blend depends on a variety of factors: the fitter you are, for example, the greater the proportion of fat you burn at any given speed. Eating a diet high in either fat or carbohydrate also tilts your preferred fuel mix in that direction. But even taking these factors into account, carbohydrates dominate for any intense exercise: one study found that over the marathon distance, running at 2:45 pace relied on 97 percent carbohydrate fuel, while slowing down to 3:45 pace reduced the carbohydrate mix to 68 percent.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

...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.

There's actually quite a lot of research on the issue. Before "keto" became a fad, ketogenic diets were a long established treatment in Humans for people suffering from inflammatory forms of epilepsy. This was actually mentioned in the other article, but you didn't bother to read it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123874/

And there is most certainly differences in how the body processes certain foods. It's proven that low carb diets work faster at weight loss. Although in the long run, all low calorie diets will result in similar weight loss:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679447

Women on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 1.0 kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.75 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study, there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. beta- Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

[Firebot]

Some here who are arguing against the keto diet still seem to go solely based off this, engrained (pun!) in their psyche of what a proper diet should be.



Brought to you by the FDA and the US department of Agriculture, who is heavily lobbied by grain and corn companies.

https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-po...ry-guidelines/

This is not the first time experts have raised concerns about the guidelines.

“Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the USDA treated fat as the primary harm in the American diet,” says Nestle. Along with its anti-fat stance—a stance researchers say was never grounded in science—the guidelines also encouraged Americans to eat hefty amounts of carbohydrates. The 1995 edition made bread, cereal, and pasta the foundation of its “Food Guide Pyramid,” and advised people to eat between six and 11 servings of grains every day, compared to just three to five servings of vegetables and two to four servings of fruit. Fat was to be eaten “sparingly.”

“This advice to eat more carbs and avoid fat is exactly backwards if you want to improve health and lower body weight,” says Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco. He and other nutrition researchers say the popularity of anti-fat, pro-carb guidelines helped fuel a rise in diet-related health problems.

''

It's always been about who gives the most money to politicians.

Remember kids! Fat bad! Cereal and corn good good good! Eat your Corn Flakes™

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

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

This? I write all that and this is this your mic-drop?

You quoted an entire post to contest a single line -- which is no obstacle because your own reply requires you to concede the point that different macronutrients as calorie sources are not all processed by the body the exact same way -- and conveniently neglected to argue the other point about simple versus complex carbohydrates. I mean, it's good you didn't, because that would be stupid; we know simple and complex carbohydrates are digested differently, as is protein which is why the thermic effect of protein is even a thing. Alcohol is a macronutrient too; it's unique in that it cannot be stored as fat, and must be metabolized by the body first.

Calories are calories, but caloric sources are different from each other in the way they are digested, how they trigger an insulin response, and the duration they keep a person sated (or not).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

For those who IF, does it affect your exercise? If I bike to work without breakfast, I am desperate for food when I get in. If I have a small lunch and no snacks I'll be absolutely famished when I ride home.

I don't do keto at all, but I do like the IF. I workout first thing in the morning and the a couple times a week at night (not a strict workout, but an activity that is very active).

Anyway, I find the workouts fine and energy isn't a problem. I do drink a black coffee beforehand, but it just takes a bit of getting used to. That and in my eating "window" I track my calories and make sure that I'm getting enough. My reason for IF isn't to cut weight or lose weight. There are a lot of studies regarding longevity and other benefits, so that's why I have gone this route.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Same old response. At least this time it isn't a stupid driveby like you do in every other thread you respond in.

At the end of the day you can post your great sources and spectacular research, but it has been known for many years that big food has influenced the research around food, food guides, what makes people 'fat', and what people need to do to lose weight.

Are we still claiming that people need to eat 400 carbs per day, 5-6 meals for satiety, fat is bad and watch that dietary cholesterol? Because all those things have been pushed onto the general public for the past 40 years and obesity and heart disease rates have skyrocketed.

In the meantime I'll be here in the group where you can see what actually makes a long-term difference in people's lives, and where cutting edge research is being done by people smarter than you and the researchers behind every study you cite.

I invite anyone who still thinks calories are equal, and that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (like honestly, are we STILL going to go down that road after 40 years of terrible health results) to read this.



https://www.dietdoctor.com/the-calorie-debacle

Sorry, but this is nonsense:

A 30% reduction in calorie intake is quickly met with a decrease in basal metabolic rate of 30%.

BMR can change slightly in response to diet changes, but for the most part it's fairly stable. Changes to lean body mass and aging affect it over the long term, but the notion that it quickly jumps up and down by 30-40% is crazy.

[Canadianman]

Man, what a thread.

Sorry dissentowner, this is what you get for breaking the first rule of keto.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by opendoor

BMR can change slightly in response to diet changes, but for the most part it's fairly stable. Changes to lean body mass and aging affect it over the long term, but the notion that it quickly jumps up and down by 30-40% is crazy.

Agreed. There are a few things in that article that definitely rub me the wrong way and I'm someone who has had great results leveraging ketosis. I've also had great results by plain ol' calorie counting.

I can lose 15-20 lbs in a month through calorie counting and exercise (and I literally just did this over Christmas, in fact.) I can lose 15-20 lbs in a month by incorporating keto and exercise. Both work for me. In my experience, keto takes less discipline on my part because the trade off of carbs is softened by incorporating more fat and protein which I like. I feel full longer, my energy stays high, and I don't feel like I'm restricting myself necessarily because in what world does eating bacon or steak feel restrictive? Not mine.

[bubbsy]

I don't know about strict Keto, but I went on a low carb diet (basically no rice, pasta, breads, and I don't eat much sugar to begin with diet), and I already kind inherently did intermittent fasting, and my body type definitely changed within a month. I am a gym regular (heavy weights) but my body fat % went down by easily 2-3% if not more (I don't track this precisely).

The bigger benefit to me was that I no longer felt lethargic and bloated after meals, which has been a game changer!!! I hated that feeling.

It's impacted me so much, my wife started the same (low carbs, and incorporating a protein shake in daily) plus intermittent fasting, and she doesn't go to the gym whatsoever, but has lost a considerable amount of weight/fat.

I strongly recommend reducing the carbs and incorporating intermittent fasting into your routine, it's made a world of difference for us.

We aren't crazy strict either. We basically do whatever we want for fri night and Saturdays, and do NOT incorporate any of this into our kids diets (4 and 7 year old).

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Azure

Same old response.

Here we go again talking about objective facts and science instead of hearsay on an internet forum

Originally Posted by Azure

At the end of the day you can post your great sources and spectacular research, but it has been known for many years that big food has influenced the research around food, food guides, what makes people 'fat', and what people need to do to lose weight.

Are we still claiming that people need to eat 400 carbs per day, 5-6 meals for satiety, fat is bad and watch that dietary cholesterol? Because all those things have been pushed onto the general public for the past 40 years and obesity and heart disease rates have skyrocketed.

In the meantime I'll be here in the group where you can see what actually makes a long-term difference in people's lives, and where cutting edge research is being done by people smarter than you and the researchers behind every study you cite.

I invite anyone who still thinks calories are equal, and that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (like honestly, are we STILL going to go down that road after 40 years of terrible health results) to read this.



https://www.dietdoctor.com/the-calorie-debacle

It's maybe been awhile since you looked at research in school, or maybe you never have, so here's a helpful guide for everyone in this thread.

Here'shttps://www.google.com/search?q=leve..._AUoAHoECAAQAw a useful google link for you.

The best individual research we have are randomized controlled trials. These attempt to create homogenous groups of people and introduce different interventions to each, including a control, to assess the efficacy of each intervention. The quality of these studies is important in order to properly assess changes due to the intervention and not due to differences between groups.

Luckily, diet changes are relatively easy to perform experiments on. Things like compliance are a huge issue, but it is a relatively straight forward intervention.

A systematic review takes all of the current RCTs, assesses them for quality, and pools results to come up with a best evidence conclusion.

Now, this next part is important. Systematic reviews are the best evidence and most scientifically reliable conclusions that we have. That is, until more RCTs are done and a new summary is completed.

The link I posted is a systematic review of all the current evidence for and against low carb diets. It is from 2019.

What you are arguing is not even on the radar of practical, tested science. It is anecdotal and theoretical. You can argue that the link you posted is expert opinion but that's assuming a guy named diet doctor who needs to promote his website and sell adspace is an 'expert'.

Your "big food" rant holds as much water as anti-vaxxer and flat earther arguments. This science contradicts everything you're saying.

As silly as saying you may as well subscribe to witch doctors is, it holds truth. Witch doctors also use anecdotal evidence and poor theory to try and fix you. And people probably benefit from that too.

But at the end of the day there is evidence against all you're saying.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

[utter waste of bandwidth to download]

Is this why our Shaw bills are going up? Can we opt out of the "I'm Wrong But Condescending" newsletter you're publishing in this thread?

[Winsor_Pilates]

To try and cut through the noise this thread is becoming, calories in vs calories out does still matter on Keto or any other diet.

From Perfect Keto:
https://perfectketo.com/do-calories-matter-keto/

Calories Matter on a Ketogenic Diet
If your goal is weight loss, then you need to be aware of calories, even on a ketogenic diet.

When you’re eating keto, you’ll notice a natural decrease in appetite. Many people end up eating less because they feel more satisfied with less food and are no longer fighting sugar cravings[*]. A ketogenic diet is also quite thermogenic. A recent well-controlled study found that people in ketosis burn about 300 more calories a day than people who are not in ketosis, likely because of thermogenesis[*].

Keto can make you feel more satisfied with less food, while also increasing the calories you burn per day. That’s a great recipe for weight loss, and it highlights the importance of paying attention to what you eat, not just how much you eat.

However, if you do end up eating more calories than your body needs, they’ll still get stored as fat, even if you’re in ketosis. This is where, at a fundamental level, calories in calories out holds true.

So while ketosis can help reduce your appetite and reduce calorie consumption, it's still important to monitor your intake vs outtake while on Keto, especially since high fat foods pack in calories so fast.