There does not appear to be overwhelming evidence that the ketogenic diet actually has any advantage over any other diet for weight loss other than it may actually reduce calorie consumption and increase adherence to the diet. It has no magical properties to make the weight loss mechanism any better or worse than any other fad diet.
Furthermore, it does not prevent or cure cancer. I do wish this particular trope would go away, but I have no power over that.
Finally, there are some big risks to the ketogenic diet, including potential links to cardiovascular diseases and all-cause mortality. In other words, the benefits of weight loss, which is important, may be outweighed by the risks. But if it works for certain individuals who are younger and at lower risk to cardiovascular diseases and other mortality events, then maybe the benefits do outweigh the risks, especially if the weight loss is significant and long-term.
There is little evidence to suggest the ketogenic diet has beneficial long-term effects on weight maintenance.[18][19][20][21]
The British Dietetic Association (BDA) included the ketogenic diet in their list of "Top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018".[28] According to the BDA:
A carefully dietitian-planned ketogenic diet can be a very effective treatment for people with epilepsy. For weight loss, there's no magic, the diet works like any other by cutting total calories and removing foods people tend to overeat. Initial side effects may include low energy levels, brain fog, increased hunger, sleep problems, nausea, digestive discomfort, bad breath and poor exercise performance. It can be an effective method of weight loss in the short term with careful planning but it is hard to sustain for many in the long term and most of the initial weight loss seen is often associated with water/fluid losses. It is never a good idea to ‘over-restrict’ any one food group (including carbohydrate), as this can mean it is more difficult to achieve a balanced diet overall with respect to vitamins, minerals and fibre in particular.[28]
In the popular press, keto is associated with a variety of unpleasant side-effects, including keto flu, keto breath, keto diarrhea, and keto crotch (an unpleasant vaginal odor). As yet there aren't any scientific studies into the phenomena, but biochemistry indicates that the keto diet causes the body to increase its production of a variety of foul-smelling chemicals including acetoacetate, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and acetone (mmm, nail polish remover).
There's a lot in there, but it's hard to get past the same demonization of Saturated fats that's increasingly been shown to be inaccurate.
Saturated fat may raise total Cholesterol, but that also includes "Good" HDL. Along with the "Bad" LDL cholesterol. But, it also converts the LDL into a mostly harmless version of itself.
Everyone I've talked to or read about that has lost weight using keto or intermittent fasting says the same thing. 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.
Everyone I've talked to or read about that has lost weight using keto or intermittent fasting says the same thing. 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.
Well, except the body is a simple machine. And energy in = energy out.
So actually, what quantity of energy you put into your body is literally the only provable way of changing your mass.....
Count me as another bit of anecdotal evidence that keto and intermittent fasting work (technically, I guess I'm more low carb than keto, because I don't worry about all the macros and just keep carbs below about 20g/day).
I've been doing it for 14 months and am down about 85 pounds. The first 70 of those pounds came off over 11 months with virtually no exercise, and I've taken off another 15 pounds over the past 3 months by continuing eating this way and hitting the gym.
The nice thing about combining keto/low carb and IF is that an occasional day off the diet isn't a killer, because you can just fast a bit longer the next day (or do a 36 hour fast) to get right back to burning fat. Of course, you don't want to get into a binge/fast cycle, but it's a nice tool to have in your pocket if, for example, your a-hole dad makes you eat pizza once a week.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to gargamel For This Useful Post:
Well if it comes from Skepticalraptor.com it must be true. If you don't like this diet tough. It works for many people I know including me and has turned their total health around and this is a topic for those supporting each other on a keto diet.
Last edited by robbie111; 02-03-2020 at 06:59 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to robbie111 For This Useful Post:
a few people have requested some keto plans and recipes. I started with Ruled Me and they have really expanded and broadened their plans and recipes since i started with them. If anything, with this you get the idea and it's a great place to start.
Well, except the body is a simple machine. And energy in = energy out.
So actually, what quantity of energy you put into your body is literally the only provable way of changing your mass.....
So it's NOT actually a stupid argument.
It's the only scientifically supported one.
Does the body use the exact same amount of energy to metabolize each calorie ingested?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
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.
Who actually makes this claim (specifically that is doesn't matter what you eat)?
Well, except the body is a simple machine. And energy in = energy out.
So actually, what quantity of energy you put into your body is literally the only provable way of changing your mass.....
So it's NOT actually a stupid argument.
It's the only scientifically supported one.
You do realize that people on keto & intermittent fasting plans are still supposed to eat their normal amount of calories per day, right?
Energy in, energy out is a very simplistic way of looking at it.
Calories are not equal.
Again, there is a reason these two diets work better than most others.
Also, scientifically supported arguments told us fats were bad and we should eat more carbs, breakfast in the most important meal of the day (a lie perpetuated by cereal companies to get kids to eat more sugar filled garbage), etc, etc. At the end of the day big food had a massive influence over what is being researched and presented to the public. Remember the massive outcry when Canada changed our food guide?
The studies on intermittent fasting are only beginning and almost every single we are seeing is positive.
If you want to actually read more on the subject from someone who is in the field and working with patients that are on these programs, look up Dr. Jason Fung. He knows more than some stupid Stanford study or 'skepticsunited' website.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
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.
Well, except the body is a simple machine. And energy in = energy out. (erm, only if the system is in balance)
So actually, what quantity of energy you put into your body is literally the only provable way of changing your mass..... (what about if you increase/decrease your basal metabolic rate?)
So it's NOT actually a stupid argument.
It's the only scientifically supported one.
Too funny! (not to mention somewhat simplistic). It seems obvious that the human body is neither simple nor a machine... this is probably why your subsequent statements are so out of whack.
The thing is, if things are as simple as you seem to think they are, we would not need endocrinologists or microbiologists, we could just solve all of our problems with high school physics. I watched an interesting documentary that left me somewhat impressed with the complexity of the metabolic processes that we all have going on: you may not agree with the professor here, but it would be hard for anyone to watch this and conclude that we are inhabiting 'simple machines'.
Who actually makes this claim (specifically that is doesn't matter what you eat)?
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
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.
A lot of people are completely fine with working out in a fasted state, but it is important to slowly work into it. Your body needs to adapt.
For me I've never had a problem, but I try very hard to make sure I eat enough total calories per day.
Take it slow, figure out how your body adapts. If working out while fasted is too hard and you are always uncomfortable after or during, change your fasting schedule.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
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.
But no one has made that argument.
People have argued that eating a calorie deficit with carbs in your diet can achieve weight loss, and that's true.
So can a keto and/or IF diet. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
You can also do IF with a carb rich diet for example.
Quote:
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.
Not sure why this was in response to my question. I didn't talk about any Stanford study.
I've listened to Dr Rhonda Patrick many times and love her work; will check out Fung.
Quote:
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.
Agree completely, and there's potentially many other effects from IF aside from weight lose that could be even more significant.
You replied to me on some massive tangent. I was simply asking who said "it doesn't matter what you eat" as long as you have a calorie deficit?
That's very different from saying a diet with a carbs can achieve weight loss.
I haven't read anyone in here saying eat a bunch of junk food and sugar, just stay in a calorie deficit and you're good to go.
Last edited by Winsor_Pilates; 02-04-2020 at 10:21 AM.
Well, except the body is a simple machine. And energy in = energy out.
So actually, what quantity of energy you put into your body is literally the only provable way of changing your mass.....
So it's NOT actually a stupid argument.
It's the only scientifically supported one.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Calories are not equal.
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.
The calorie in/out thing is not entirely true. The human body definitely digests some calories more efficiently than others, and our scientific understanding of how that happens is very poor. For example it was only recently discovered that humans are very poor at converting sugars back into fats, and we rely heavily on dietary fats for fat storage. There's also all sorts of conflicting studies about whether humans can create new fat cells.
A major issue is that many of our dietary models were created using rats. Rat metabolism is nothing like human metabolism. Rats are true omnivores and ruminates. Humans are generally very poor at breaking down anything complex. We rely entirely on meat and cash crops, which we've engineered to have relatively simple and easily broken down nutrients.
Count me as another bit of anecdotal evidence that keto and intermittent fasting work (technically, I guess I'm more low carb than keto, because I don't worry about all the macros and just keep carbs below about 20g/day).
I've been doing it for 14 months and am down about 85 pounds. The first 70 of those pounds came off over 11 months with virtually no exercise, and I've taken off another 15 pounds over the past 3 months by continuing eating this way and hitting the gym.
The nice thing about combining keto/low carb and IF is that an occasional day off the diet isn't a killer, because you can just fast a bit longer the next day (or do a 36 hour fast) to get right back to burning fat. Of course, you don't want to get into a binge/fast cycle, but it's a nice tool to have in your pocket if, for example, your a-hole dad makes you eat pizza once a week.
With low carbs like that how on earth do people get the required amount of calories in a day I struggle to hit 2000 every day to the point where I have to throw in a cookie or 2 and my macronutrients are usually around 200g carbs 60 ish to 90ish grams fat and 130 or higher protien
With low carbs like that how on earth do people get the required amount of calories in a day I struggle to hit 2000 every day to the point where I have to throw in a cookie or 2 and my macronutrients are usually around 200g carbs 60 ish to 90ish grams fat and 130 or higher protien
A lot of people on the zero carb diets aren't getting to 2000 calories. Hence the massive weight loss.
There are a lot of fatty foods with lots of calories though: cheese, cream sauces, fried foods, non-lean meats (ex: bacon, ground beef), butter, other oils, etc..
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
With low carbs like that how on earth do people get the required amount of calories in a day I struggle to hit 2000 every day to the point where I have to throw in a cookie or 2 and my macronutrients are usually around 200g carbs 60 ish to 90ish grams fat and 130 or higher protien
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
