Jillian Micheals " Avoid the Keto Diet at all costs" - Offers little evidence and analysis

Calamari41 · Jan 13, 2019

Broken Hope said:
I didn't attribute any health benefits to CICO, I said I didn't feel like shit whilst doing it, any health benefits I experienced were from the weight loss and exercise, would never state otherwise.

In which case, why would it matter how the weight was lost as long as it was done so in a way to where the person felt great the whole time and saw all of the health benefits? And just as importantly, the person was also being tracked by their doctor who saw no negative health effects?

There are countless testimonials around, and in this thread, from people who were able to lose huge amounts of weight, and who said this was the only way that worked for them. Whats the problem with that, if it worked? It's better that they not be morbidly obese in my opinion.

Anyway, this whole back and forth started when you told me that I couldn't credit keto for my health unless I tried other diets to compare. I said that I did, and you basically replied saying "well you didn't do it right then." I'm not sure where to go from there.

pedanticmikey · Jan 13, 2019

Zefah, I'm on Keto, so I'm not trying to win one for the anti-keto crowd, but the claim that your body produces all the glucose you need is simply not true.

Maybe if you're sedentary, but the body cannot keep up with proper glucose production when you are regularly active on keto. For low level heart rate work after months/years of fat adaptation, maybe. But certainly not at any decent level of VO2 Max work.

For your claim to be true, it must always be the case. Otherwise you should think about being more precise with it.

Avitus · Jan 13, 2019

pedanticmikey said:
Maybe if you're sedentary, but the body cannot keep up with proper glucose production when you are regularly active on keto. For low level heart rate work after months/years of fat adaptation, maybe. But certainly not at any decent level of VO2 Max work.

This isn't really true. After a short adaptation period (about a month), high fat diets work just as well. There are many professional athletes that can attest to this. Fat oxidation goes way up in the absence of carbs. If you are interested in the math and studies, here's a great video:

AnilP228 · Jan 13, 2019

pedanticmikey said:
Zefah, I'm on Keto, so I'm not trying to win one for the anti-keto crowd, but the claim that your body produces all the glucose you need is simply not true.

Maybe if you're sedentary, but the body cannot keep up with proper glucose production when you are regularly active on keto. For low level heart rate work after months/years of fat adaptation, maybe. But certainly not at any decent level of VO2 Max work.

For your claim to be true, it must always be the case. Otherwise you should think about being more precise with it.

Lots of athletes and sports team do keto so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment?

pedanticmikey · Jan 13, 2019

AnilP228 said:
Lots of athletes and sports team do keto so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment?

Avitus said:
This isn't really true. After a short adaptation period (about a month), high fat diets work just as well. There are many professional athletes that can attest to this. Fat oxidation goes way up in the absence of carbs. If you are interested in the math and studies, here's a great video:

As I said, athletes doing low heart rate and endurance events, after a long period of fat adaptation.

Even the keto experts themselves discourage it for people and athletes doing high stress or high VO2 Max exercise.

Calamari41 · Jan 13, 2019

pedanticmikey said:
As I said, athletes doing low heart rate and endurance events, after a long period of fat adaptation.

Even the keto experts themselves discourage it for people and athletes doing high stress or high VO2 Max exercise.

High level/professional athletes need to keep a close watch on every aspect of their diet and health, for sure, and make sure that they're following the plan to the letter. Most of what people are talking about in here though is for the average Joe, who might be going to the gym a few times a week or doing some regular running.

Fugu · Jan 13, 2019

Zefah said:
Why? Do you just not like to be challenged or something?

Imagine you're a doctor. You spent countless years working hard at school, during which you've invariably engaged extensively with the finer points of medicine. You have a lot of responsibility every day; society has entrusted you with people's health. Now, it's Saturday evening, and there's a thread on Era about the keto diet. The thread is filled to the brim with misinformation. A poster, who is clearly not a doctor, wants to engage with you in a debate that is likely going to involve you going over a lot of basic facts (which may be contentious when put in the context of the ideology of the poster but are not, in fact, contentious) before you can even get to the crux of the issue. Would you engage in this debate? Probably not.

The use of the keto diet outside of as a treatment for epilepsy is not based on medical science. You will invariably have to deal with that fact, as well as with the broader findings associated with LCHF diets in general that they result in increased mortality and are ineffective at achieving long-term weight loss.

lint2015 · Jan 13, 2019

Her reasoning seems sound to me. I don't know much about the scientific evidence supporting the keto diet, but it does very much sound like a fad that goes against having a nutritionally balanced diet. I'll defer to the actual experts, like this Fugu person above.

And as always for anyone wanting to embark on a diet or exercise regimen, consult your doctor, not some websites and YouTube videos.

Deleted member 1635 · Jan 13, 2019

Fugu said:
Imagine you're a doctor. You spent countless years working hard at school, during which you've invariably engaged extensively with the finer points of medicine. You have a lot of responsibility every day; society has entrusted you with people's health. Now, it's Saturday evening, and there's a thread on Era about the keto diet. The thread is filled to the brim with misinformation. A poster, who is clearly not a doctor, wants to engage with you in a debate that is likely going to involve you going over a lot of basic facts (which may be contentious when put in the context of the ideology of the poster but are not, in fact, contentious) before you can even get to the crux of the issue. Would you engage in this debate? Probably not.

There are a lot of doctors who don't know the finer points of specific fields of medicine. GPs in particular will not have specialized knowledge unless they were inclined to seek it out for themselves.

What would I dio if I saw a debate I wasn't interested in having? I certainly wouldn't post some "*sigh* this is so beneath me" commentary in that thread.

Fugu said:
The use of the keto diet outside of as a treatment for epilepsy is not based on medical science. You will invariably have to deal with that fact, as well as with the broader findings associated with LCHF diets in general that they result in increased mortality and are ineffective at achieving long-term weight loss.

Diets based on medical science is sadly not a high bar. The garbage and downright fraudulent "science" performed by Ancel Keys and others backed by the grain industry have driven policy for decades and look where that has gotten us.

The bottom line is that there just has not been much in terms of rigorous science examining LCHF diets in terms of its effects on health and weight loss. We have a very small pool, which is why so many people bring up anecdotes and N=1 experiments.

Deleted member 1635 · Jan 13, 2019

pedanticmikey said:
Zefah, I'm on Keto, so I'm not trying to win one for the anti-keto crowd, but the claim that your body produces all the glucose you need is simply not true.

Maybe if you're sedentary, but the body cannot keep up with proper glucose production when you are regularly active on keto. For low level heart rate work after months/years of fat adaptation, maybe. But certainly not at any decent level of VO2 Max work.

For your claim to be true, it must always be the case. Otherwise you should think about being more precise with it.

I'm not going to claim that there are not people who won't do well on a keto diet, but there are plenty of people who are fit and athletic who also eschew dietary carbohydrate. Some elite athletes fall in this camp, too. It's absolutely not just something that just applies to sedentary people.

pedanticmikey · Jan 13, 2019

Calamari41 said:
High level/professional athletes need to keep a close watch on every aspect of their diet and health, for sure, and make sure that they're following the plan to the letter. Most of what people are talking about in here though is for the average Joe, who might be going to the gym a few times a week or doing some regular running.

I do 1hr of cardio thats a mix of distance and HIIT (I live a mile high and run with dogs on trails) 5 days a week, with a sixth day being a 5-10 miles. Plus barbell work 2-3 days a week.

That's not extrodinary by any measure, especially compared to pro athletes.

I went hypoglycemic during my first round of keto, which basically stuck with me on the border between really low blood sugar and hypoglycemic from day 5 onward.

I ended up having to increase my daily carbs to 60-80g, which keeps me around 1.5-2.4 on the keto mojo.

Consulted some experts, and everyone basically said what I said above. The body simply cannot produce glucose fast enough for highly active people.

Fugu · Jan 13, 2019

Zefah said:
Diets based on medical science is sadly not a high bar. The garbage and downright fraudulent "science" performed by Ancel Keys and others backed by the grain industry have driven policy for decades and look where that has gotten us.

The bottom line is that there just has not been much in terms of rigorous science examining LCHF diets in terms of its effects on health and weight loss. We have a very small pool, which is why so many people bring up anecdotes and N=1 experiments.

What evidence do you have that the bolded is true? It seems that the opposite is true - doctors and medical associations have been reluctant to endorse any particular diet because other factors, such as adherence in the case of weight loss, have proven far more predictive of success than, say, arbitrarily electing to avoid carbs because ketosis sounds appealing on paper.

Advocating for a particular diet forces you to overcome essentially two separate burdens. The first is that the keto diet being especially good for anything besides epilepsy is a position with basically zero scientific foundation. Additionally, you have to overcome the fact that these sort of lopsided diets in general tend to receive very little support from the medical field because any success seen through them is much more readily attributable to other factors than to the diet itself. "I lost weight on keto so keto is good" is textbook correlation versus causation: You can't distinguish between whether the person lost weight because of the diet or because of the simple fact that they were paying attention to what they ate, and what we know about weight loss suggests that the latter is far more important than the former.

Besides, at the end of the day, "the evidence on LCHF benefits is sparse" is not a counterargument to "you have no evidence that LCHF diets are a good idea for normal people". Indeed, it actually supports the position that your view that LCHF is a good idea is largely baseless.

Giving people baseless advice with known health consequences (the connection between the keto diet and kidney stones is pretty clear, for example) is somewhere between misguided and dangerous.

xolsec · Jan 13, 2019

Biske said:
All I know is the people in my life who are on keto or talk about keto are the most unbearable people to be around.

Being on a diet is fine, but really, I don't need to hear you talk about it every moment of every fucking day. When you deliberately ask to go to lunch with me and then proceed to go on and on about how at fucking Wendy's you are gonna need to make sure you get something Keto.

I just can't. I can't.

Have you met a vegan?

Biske · Jan 13, 2019

XolSec said:
Have you met a vegan?

Don't worry, most annoying Keto Lady is also a Vegan. I dunno what that entails or even if it really works or is combinable but yeah.

amanset · Jan 14, 2019

Zefah said:
Anyone who goes back to their poor eating habits that got them fat in the first place will regain the weight. It happens with almost every single person who has ever tried to lose weight.

To be honest, it is not that simple.

I lost a stupid amount of weight as an undiagnosed type 1 diabetic. When I started eating normally again (emphasis on normally, I was not overweight before) the weight came flooding back on. Weirdly fast. I was told by medical professionals to expect that this would happen and it very much did.

Bodies are complex and weird. It is very easy to say "oh they just went back to eating badly" but my experience tells a very different story.

LL_Decitrig · Jan 14, 2019

Since this thread is still continuing, perhaps it's time for a well researched, authoritative guide to the role of carbohydrates, protein and fat in a healthy diet.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-weight/why-we-need-to-eat-carbs/

Contrite · Jan 14, 2019

I'm honestly still confused about the purpose or use of all these diets; apart from making influencers/diet-book authors money I mean.

As to the people saying "NO ITS NOT A FAD :((", it kinda is? Like, it isn't a short-lived fad that rises once never to be seen again, but it is apart of diet-fad-rotation which seems neverending. Like where I live it was first Atkins having a new life, then general low-carb/variations thereof, then all these weird juice-cleanses and diets, and now it is keto/paleo.

"But it works!!" Yes, taking note of and caring about what you stuff into your piehole causes weight-reduction, news at eleven.

Horn · Jan 14, 2019

Zefah said:
The bottom line is that there just has not been much in terms of rigorous science examining LCHF diets in terms of its effects on health and weight loss. We have a very small pool, which is why so many people bring up anecdotes and N=1 experiments.

Instead of saying that the current science is garbage it sure would help if you provide better science to back up your claims. Oh, that's right Gary Taubes did just that when he started NuSi and how is that project coming along?

For all of you who don't know who Gary Taubes is: He basically is the God father of the low-carb movement and says basically the same things Zefah says in this thread:
- That the current nutritional science is terrible
- That the reason we have a epedemic in obesity is because of carbs and the release of insulin.

And as a result Taubes started NuSi, as he wanted to provide the world with better studies:

"The Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to reducing the individual, economic, and social costs of obesity, diabetes, and their related diseases by improving the quality of science in nutrition and obesity research."
About Nusi

So they invested alot of money and put people in something called a metabolic ward where you with greater detail can observe what happens to the body during different diets etc. It's really expensice and really accurate. *Update, the metabolic ward is only in study 1

The results

Study 1: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

"This study demonstrated that, calorie for calorie, restriction of dietary fat led to greater body fat loss than restriction of dietary carbohydrate in adults with obesity."

Study 2: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150

" In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom."

So no, the claim that low-carb "works" (for some) because of not eating carbs (rather then being on a calori deficit) is not backed up by science.

Mendrox · Jan 14, 2019

Contrite said:
I'm honestly still confused about the purpose or use of all these diets; apart from making influencers/diet-book authors money I mean.

As to the people saying "NO ITS NOT A FAD :((", it kinda is? Like, it isn't a short-lived fad that rises once never to be seen again, but it is apart of diet-fad-rotation which seems neverending. Like where I live it was first Atkins having a new life, then general low-carb/variations thereof, then all these weird juice-cleanses and diets, and now it is keto/paleo.

"But it works!!" Yes, taking note of and caring about what you stuff into your piehole causes weight-reduction, news at eleven.

Diet is the wrong word. It's a lifestyle change. Diets don't help anyone in the long run and the reason people say it works... is because it works and we also have good enough evidence why it works in this case.

Gatti-man · Jan 14, 2019

8byte said:
I agree but for different reasons. I'll get quote murdered here I'm sure and will have to ignore my notifications all day but...

Too many people use Keto as a way to lose weight without educating themselves...at all. They don't understand diet, exercise, discipline, or their damn bodies. Then, when they've hit their weight loss goal..boom. It all comes swarming back because they haven't LEARNED anything. Keto is popular because of the speed at which people lose weight. It has it's place, but as a primary dietary plan...I agree that it is a bad idea. I wish more people would simply learn the merits of counting your macros, building workout plans, and understanding their own physiology.

Keto has its place...but I advise most people against it, simply because for most people, the weight loss it offers will not be long term.

People don't want to workout and would rather malnourish themselves.

Keto is good for specific instances and best used under medical supervision. As a diet on its own it's unhealthy.

Horn · Jan 14, 2019

Mendrox said:
Diet is the wrong word. It's a lifestyle change

The mother of all clichés. If you change the way you eat in order to lose weight, you're on a diet.

Mendrox said:
Diets don't help anyone in the long run and the reason people say it works... is because it works and we also have good enough evidence why it works in this case.

" In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom."
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150

JVID · Jan 14, 2019

Horn said:
The mother of all clichés. If you change the way you eat in order to lose weight, you're on a diet.

" In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom."
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150

What is considered "low carb" in this study? Also if a specific diet is easier to follow for an individual and leads to the same result why is that an issue.

Krauser Kat · Jan 14, 2019

Gatti-man said:
People don't want to workout and would rather malnourish themselves.

Keto is good for specific instances and best used under medical supervision. As a diet on its own it's unhealthy.

Whaaaaaat lol. if you are eating 4k calories a day and you need to get to 3k, there is no way you are going to burn 1000 calories running for 45-60 minutes everyday vs just eating less.

Contrite · Jan 14, 2019

Mendrox said:
Diet is the wrong word. It's a lifestyle change. Diets don't help anyone in the long run and the reason people say it works... is because it works and we also have good enough evidence why it works in this case.

The confusion still stands. Keto is a 'diet', the fact that some people make it their permanent diet doesn't change the fact that most people use it as a temporary diet to lose weight (which often fails). In any case, yes, changing your eating habits to be more healthy, is, weirdly enough, healthy. But why go on a specific diet (keto in this case) instead of just changing your normal diet slowly? The latter is much easier to do, in addition to most likely being better for your body.

Like the only useful thing about all these diets that I can think of is if you're lacking in self-discipline and/or you are receptive to authority and need some sort of "authority" to follow.

I'm interested in the 'good evidence why it [keto]works' though.

Horn · Jan 14, 2019

JVIDICAN said:
What is considered "low carb" in this study?

"The dietary interventions were described previously.10 Briefly, the main goals were to achieve maximal differentiation in intake of fats and carbohydrates between the 2 diet groups while otherwise maintaining equal treatment intensity and an emphasis on high-quality foods and beverages. Thus, participants were instructed to reduce intake of total fat or digestible carbohydrates to 20 g/d during the first 8 weeks. Higher priorities for reduction were given to specific foods and food groups that derived their energy content primarily from fats or carbohydrates. For example, the reduction of edible oils, fatty meats, whole-fat dairy, and nuts was prioritized for the healthy low-fat group, whereas the reduction of cereals, grains, rice, starchy vegetables, and legumes was prioritized for the healthy low-carbohydrate group.

Then individuals slowly added fats or carbohydrates back to their diets in increments of 5 to 15 g/d per week until they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be maintained indefinitely. No explicit instructions for energy (kilocalories) restriction were given. Both diet groups were instructed to (1) maximize vegetable intake; (2) minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and (3) focus on whole foods that were minimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible. Other components of the emphasis on high-quality food for both diet groups are described elsewhere.10 "

JVIDICAN said:
Also if a specific diet is easier to follow for an individual and leads to the same result why is that an issue.

What have I said is an issue? We're talking about the effects of LCHF and weather it's "better" or not in regards of fat loss.

Wooden Robot · Jan 14, 2019

I know a guy that posts about Keto combined with fasting all the time, it's really worked well for him so that's good but then again I'm like wow, who would have thought, not eating makes you lose weight. His fervor seems almost cult like though, I guess it has to be to stick with it.

JVID · Jan 14, 2019

Horn said:
"The dietary interventions were described previously.10 Briefly, the main goals were to achieve maximal differentiation in intake of fats and carbohydrates between the 2 diet groups while otherwise maintaining equal treatment intensity and an emphasis on high-quality foods and beverages. Thus, participants were instructed to reduce intake of total fat or digestible carbohydrates to 20 g/d during the first 8 weeks. Higher priorities for reduction were given to specific foods and food groups that derived their energy content primarily from fats or carbohydrates. For example, the reduction of edible oils, fatty meats, whole-fat dairy, and nuts was prioritized for the healthy low-fat group, whereas the reduction of cereals, grains, rice, starchy vegetables, and legumes was prioritized for the healthy low-carbohydrate group.

Then individuals slowly added fats or carbohydrates back to their diets in increments of 5 to 15 g/d per week until they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be maintained indefinitely. No explicit instructions for energy (kilocalories) restriction were given. Both diet groups were instructed to (1) maximize vegetable intake; (2) minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and (3) focus on whole foods that were minimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible. Other components of the emphasis on high-quality food for both diet groups are described elsewhere.10 "

What have I said is an issue? We're talking about the effects of LCHF and weather it's "better" or not in regards of fat loss.

Gotcha. Theres a few in here attacking anything other than cico without restrictions. Sorry I made an assumption. Fair enough. :)

Tarot Deck · Jan 14, 2019

sgtnosboss said:
I am 100% in her boat OP sorry. Its a trend that will pass, and I'm predicting in a few more years with research we will find the long term affects are awful.

edit: I am ok with people using this short term for results, but it really scares me when people say they will do this diet for life.

I am on the same boat. There is a reason the body is producing ketogenic acids. Its not the usual metabolic path.

I like low carb diets myself.

Psychotext · Jan 14, 2019

pedanticmikey said:
Consulted some experts, and everyone basically said what I said above. The body simply cannot produce glucose fast enough for highly active people.

You are absolutely correct. There are limits to how quickly the body can turn fat into ketones.

Once you've burned through your liver / muscle glycogen there will be a limit to your high intensity output. I forget the exact heart rate, but I believe it's something like 80% of max HR (sustained). Obviously you can get away with bursts of high intensity, but you'd need to allow your body to recover adequately between efforts. As such, it's a terrible choice for anyone that needs regular access to threshold / VO2max efforts.

If you don't fit in that particular group of people though, it's just fine as a diet.

Horn · Jan 14, 2019

JVIDICAN said:
Gotcha. Theres a few in here attacking anything other than cico without restrictions. Sorry I made an assumption. Fair enough. :)

Yes, emotions can be strong in threads like this :)

Gatti-man · Jan 14, 2019

Krauser Kat said:
Whaaaaaat lol. if you are eating 4k calories a day and you need to get to 3k, there is no way you are going to burn 1000 calories running for 45-60 minutes everyday vs just eating less.

A proper weight loss program includes diet AND exercise. Not just diet. Diet on its own is good for maintaining weight or slow incremental weight loss. People want quick weight loss without working out that requires starving your body like with Keto.

Eating 4K calories is insane. That's a ton of food and most likely killing yourself at that intake unless you're a body builder or sports athlete.

Deleted member 1635 · Jan 14, 2019

Gatti-man said:
A proper weight loss program includes diet AND exercise. Not just diet. Diet on its own is good for maintaining weight or slow incremental weight loss. People want quick weight loss without working out that requires starving your body like with Keto.

Eating 4K calories is insane. That's a ton of food and most likely killing yourself at that intake unless you're a body builder or sports athlete.

This is ridiculous. You don't have to starve yourself of anything the body needs. People thrive while eating low-carb and come out the other end healthier in every way.

Fugu · Jan 14, 2019

Zefah said:
This is ridiculous. You don't have to starve yourself of anything the body needs. People thrive while eating low-carb and come out the other end healthier in every way.

You've presented exactly zero evidence that LCHF diets are a good idea.

Lentic · Jan 14, 2019

If I'm not wrong, it seems that the biggest issue with keto is that you're getting most of your calories from fat and protein. Large amounts of saturated fats and protein have been suggested to be bad for you long term. They both increase aging and chances for diseases.

Broken Hope · Jan 14, 2019

JVIDICAN said:
What is considered "low carb" in this study? Also if a specific diet is easier to follow for an individual and leads to the same result why is that an issue.

It's not an issue until people start rubbishing CICO, claiming they can eat 4000 calories of low carb food and not gain and basically saying Keto is magic.

JVID · Jan 14, 2019

Broken Hope said:
It's not an issue until people start rubbishing CICO, claiming they can eat 4000 calories of low carb food and not gain and basically saying Keto is magic.

Those people are vastly overstimating their calorie intake. Or eating and shitting pounds of undigested bacon fat.

Calamari41 · Jan 14, 2019

Broken Hope said:
It's not an issue until people start rubbishing CICO, claiming they can eat 4000 calories of low carb food and not gain and basically saying Keto is magic.

Are feces calculated in CICO programs?

Broken Hope · Jan 14, 2019

Calamari41 said:
Are feces calculated in CICO programs?

You seriously have some sort of chip on your shoulder, actually find a post where I've said anything bad about Keto, or any other diet? I just find the claims of Keto being some magical way of eating that overrules the laws of thermodynamics and allows people to eat well over their TDEE and not gain any weight, whilst also having magical health benefits that aren't present in any other diet where the person loses weight to be really silly.

Rather than, person loses weight, health improves, shock horror!

If eating Keto allows someone to control how much they are eating and lose weight, then that's great, myself and plenty of others will count calories and have more freedom in what we eat, some will use Slimming World, or Weight Watchers, or any other variety of diets that all ultimately reduce someone's calorie intake.

Calamari41 · Jan 14, 2019

Broken Hope said:
You seriously have some sort of chip on your shoulder, actually find a post where I've said anything bad about Keto, or any other diet? I just find the claims of Keto being some magical way of eating that overrules the laws of thermodynamics and allows people to eat well over their TDEE and not gain any weight, whilst also having magical health benefits that aren't present in any other diet where the person loses weight to be really silly.

Rather than, person loses weight, health improves, shock horror!

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just asked you a question that I didn't know the answer to. I didn't realize you were the same poster I had a discussion with earlier, I just saw your post and it made me wonder. My experience matches that of the person who threw out the (very exaggerated) 4,000 calorie remark. If I ever overate, I kept losing weight at the same rate and just shat more out.

Shit exiting your body follows the laws of thermodynamics. In fact it's exactly what happens to all of the fiber I eat. I thought you might have more info on that aspect of this whole broad topic.

Psychotext · Jan 14, 2019

Calamari41 said:
Shit exiting your body follows the laws of thermodynamics. In fact it's exactly what happens to all of the fiber I eat. I thought you might have more info on that aspect of this whole broad topic.

It's a nice idea, but in metabolic ward based studies it really all does come down to CICO when these diets are compared... give or take some minor metabolic differences.

LCHF definitely has other advantages (fast weight loss at start due to water loss, good for satiety, much more thought has to go into picking food), but as has already been stated, it's not magic.

Calamari41 · Jan 14, 2019

Psychotext said:
It's a nice idea, but in metabolic ward based studies it really all does come down to CICO when these diets are compared... give or take some minor metabolic differences.

LCHF definitely has other advantages (fast weight loss at start due to water loss, good for satiety, much more thought has to go into picking food), but as has already been stated, it's not magic.

Right, and I never said its magic or anything like that. I never even argued that it doesn't rely on CICO in the weight loss phase. I was addressing the topic of what happened to me and that other poster when we over-ate on the diet, but still kept losing weight at the same rate.

All I've really done in this topic is explain my personal experience with this diet and a couple of other ones. If people think I'm not being truthful or that I didn't perform one or the other correctly, that's fine, but at the same time it's not going to do much to convince me. Not saying that you said or implied any of that, I'm just reflecting in general on my experience in here.

Gatti-man · Jan 14, 2019

Zefah said:
This is ridiculous. You don't have to starve yourself of anything the body needs. People thrive while eating low-carb and come out the other end healthier in every way.

Read my post again. I qualified everything I said. Low carb isn't ketosis. Ketosis is extreme low carb forcing the body to metabolize fat to fill the holes in your diet.

Deleted member 1635 · Jan 14, 2019

Fugu said:
You've presented exactly zero evidence that LCHF diets are a good idea.

What constitutes evidence and what constitutes "good idea?"

I don't see how you can look at all of the people who are healthy and thriving after being fat and sick and say what they did was a bad idea.

Gatti-man said:
Read my post again. I qualified everything I said. Low carb isn't ketosis. Ketosis is extreme low carb forcing the body to metabolize fat to fill the holes in your diet.

The body always metabolizes fat. The lower the carb intake, the more it relies on it is all.

Broken Hope · Jan 14, 2019

Calamari41 said:
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just asked you a question that I didn't know the answer to. I didn't realize you were the same poster I had a discussion with earlier, I just saw your post and it made me wonder. My experience matches that of the person who threw out the (very exaggerated) 4,000 calorie remark. If I ever overate, I kept losing weight at the same rate and just shat more out.

Shit exiting your body follows the laws of thermodynamics. In fact it's exactly what happens to all of the fiber I eat. I thought you might have more info on that aspect of this whole broad topic.

Over eating on Keto isn't actually that easy though, eating even 3000 calories of protein and leafy vegetables would take a lot of vegetables that aren't high in calories, and all the protein you'd find yourself feeling full quickly. That's the problem, people saying they binged on Keto, it's hard to binge when your body is feeling so stuffed.

Where's I can binge on a few 1000 calories of shit like Pringles, or sugary sweets very easily. I mean a bag of Haribo in the UK is like 700 calories and I could eat a whole one of those in 5-10 minutes easily. How much broccoli, or carrots or chicken is 700 calories? a lot more and takes a lot longer and would actually make me feel full, the Haribo wouldn't.

MasterSummerSmith462 · Jan 14, 2019

I mean, you don't need to do keto unless you really need to lose weight and cut carbs and sugars.

Psychotext · Jan 14, 2019

I could eat all the bacon and cheese in the world. Try and stop me. :D

Deleted member 1635 · Jan 14, 2019

Psychotext said:
It's a nice idea, but in metabolic ward based studies it really all does come down to CICO when these diets are compared... give or take some minor metabolic differences.

LCHF definitely has other advantages (fast weight loss at start due to water loss, good for satiety, much more thought has to go into picking food), but as has already been stated, it's not magic.

What needs to be looked at is weight gain to see if there is actually an advantage. Equally high calorie diets, one high in fat/low in carb vs. one high in carb/low in fat and see which puts on more adipose tissue over a span of time.

Fugu · Jan 14, 2019

Zefah said:
What constitutes evidence and what constitutes "good idea?"

I don't see how you can look at all of the people who are healthy and thriving after being fat and sick and say what they did was a bad idea.

The body always metabolizes fat. The lower the carb intake, the more it relies on it is all.

You're confusing correlation with causation. By misattributing the weight loss to the keto diet you are giving bad advice because the evidence does not demonstrate that that is what is causing the weight loss. Further, keto diets are not risk-free; electing to adhere to such a diet when you don't need to (ie you do not have epilepsy that is poorly controlled) is taking on pointless risk.

Calamari41 · Jan 14, 2019

Broken Hope said:
Over eating on Keto isn't actually that easy though, eating even 3000 calories of protein and leafy vegetables would take a lot of vegetables that aren't high in calories, and all the protein you'd find yourself feeling full quickly. That's the problem, people saying they binged on Keto, it's hard to binge when your body is feeling so stuffed.

Where's I can binge on a few 1000 calories of shit like Pringles, or sugary sweets very easily. I mean a bag of Haribo in the UK is like 700 calories and I could eat a whole one of those in 5-10 minutes easily. How much broccoli, or carrots or chicken is 700 calories? a lot more and takes a lot longer and would actually make me feel full, the Haribo wouldn't.

Totally agree with this, which is one of the reasons the diet is so easy for people to lose weight on. Just the act of cutting out the kinds of foods you mentioned does worlds of good for every issue imaginable, from hunger to calorie deficits and on. Someone could eat all of that shit that you mentioned in your post, and probably still feel hungry soon afterwards.

Even if all else is equal, I'm happy if someone is able to lose weight that they need to lose if this is the way that they finally manage to be able to do it, and keep it off. As far as I'm concerned, if it really is all just about CICO, then a diet where someone can think that they just had a binge eating session but still be firmly in a calorie deficit would be a good thing if for nothing other than keeping people losing weight.

Rokuren · Jan 14, 2019

Zefah said:
What needs to be looked at is weight gain to see if there is actually an advantage. Equally high calorie diets, one high in fat/low in carb vs. one high in carb/low in fat and see which puts on more adipose tissue over a span of time.

A recent literature review checked that https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786199/ one of their conclusions was

There appears to be no meaningful difference between overfeeding on a high-carbohydrate or high-fat diet, although there may be an advantage to changes in body composition and fat distribution with consuming glucose rather than fructose and linoleic acid rather than palmitic acid

Jillian Micheals " Avoid the Keto Diet at all costs" - Offers little evidence and analysis

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User-Requested Ban

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer