Can we talk about the keto diet?

[hal9000]

did. It's reasonable to conclude that our food had something to do with our increased lifespan.

Sanitation/solid waste disposal probably has the biggest impact in human lifespan. Followed by antibiotics and other medical advances.

Grains are certainly the most efficient way to feed a large population. Most of human history would have loved to have an endless supply of cheap calories. Although aside from being able to easily fulfill the caloric intake required for survival, most grains are relatively low in nutritional value.

Fair points too. I didn't say that food was THE biggest factor, just one factor.

I still say that most of our health problems associated with food are related to three things: quantity, and microbiome, and genetics.

 

[hal9000]

Jeff Volek

https://www.truehealthunlimited.com/blog/lowcarbapproach


I'm waiting for him to say cholesterol and heart attacks aren't even real.

 

[FecalFace]

Fair points too. I didn't say that food was THE biggest factor, just one factor.

I still say that most of our health problems associated with food are related to three things: quantity, and microbiome, and [size:16pt]genetics[/size].

Oh sh!t, you done did it now.

Cue more science denying.

 

[hal9000]

Small sample size, but it is a metabolic ward study, therefore the highest standard. No advantage with ketogenic over high carb, and there was more muscle loss with the keto diet https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649

Many other high carb vs low carb metabolic ward studies have shown no difference in total weight loss when controlling for total calories.

Controlling total calories is obviously the name of the game, but LCHF diets help to curb calorie cravings because there are less sugar spikes. Obviously replacing things like potatoes with vegetables create great calorie deficits as well.

LCHF diets work really well for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. I'm not really sure why there is so much hate for them. Probably for the same reason why people hate vegans and probably politically motivated

My criticism comes from the keto/low carb types who argue that there is some sort of metabolic hack with keto that supercedes caloric intake. They say idiotic straw man tripe like “so 1000 calories of Oreos has the same effect on my health as 1000 calories of salmon and broccoli?!” and that you don’t need to worry about calories. Then some take it a step further and talk about adding tablespoons of butter and coconut oil into your coffee as a weight loss tool. It’s misleading information that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Talking up the indirect benefits, that I mentioned in my very first post on this thread and the same ones that you also mentioned, is legitimate. All of which lead to less calorie intake.
I do agree that there are politics involved in the LCHF hate. The nutrition pyramid was written by grain and dairy councils, which is how we ended up with idiotic recs like 6-11 servings of grain per day and crappy polyunsaturated fats. All of those federally subsidized excess grain and seed crops need a home. Those same industries are also major contributors to the American heart association and several other health related non-profits.
Just like with everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle

Another criticism I have with people jumping on a keto bandwagon is that this diet was developed specifically for people with either neurologic or metabolic disorders.

What you end up with is generally young, healthy, active people eating a calorie-restriction diet, so, of course they're going to lose weight. Beware sample size and lack of control groups.

 

[hal9000]

Fair points too. I didn't say that food was THE biggest factor, just one factor.

I still say that most of our health problems associated with food are related to three things: quantity, and microbiome, and [size:16pt]genetics[/size].

Oh sh!t, you done did it now.

Cue more science denying.

I'm being serious..... I just belly-laughed at that for two minutes.

 

[hal9000]

Oh, another problem I have with keto is that much of the weight loss is water weight, since you lose a significant amount of water during glycogenolysis.

 

[Ifallalot]

Oh, another problem I have with keto is that much of the weight loss is water weight, since you lose a significant amount of water during glycogenolysis.

Early weight loss is water weight. But people aren't losing 50-100 lbs of water.

 

[Chee-to]

I think there's some truth to the "macronutrients magically supersede calories" meme. Hear me out.

Weight loss or gain isn't actually calories in vs. calories out. It's more accurately calories absorbed vs. calories burned. In other words, (a) the human digestive system doesn't run at optimal efficiency, and probably varies in its absorbtion abilities between individuals; and (b) certain types of energy-spiking foods probably lead to increased burn rates through mechanisms like NEAT and changed sleep patterns.

Now, scientifically, I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is a hypothesis distilled from observed empirical evidence: I did a LCHF ketogenic diet for about 18 months while meticulously tracking food and exercise.

My normal BMR is about 2800 calories. During the keto diet, I ate 3100-3400 calories per day with a breakdown of 60-70% fat, 20-30% protein, 10-20% carbs. I lost weight and could not get above a certain weight threshold, regardless of extra lifting or meals. I slept less, got heartburn/GERD more, and fidgeted more.

Then I added white rice back into the equation and cut the fat, to a 2600-3000 calorie, 30/30/40ish diet. I gained ten pounds more or less immediately with no other changes.

Currently I'm eating even less, with more carbs - not tracking now, but I would estimate 2400-2800 calories. Weight is staying put despite heavy surf sessions.

So, either I don't absorb fat well, or my body upregulates and increases metabolic function when I eat an overload of it.

 

[Ifallalot]

Fair points too. I didn't say that food was THE biggest factor, just one factor.

I still say that most of our health problems associated with food are related to three things: quantity, and microbiome, and [size:16pt]genetics[/size].

Oh sh!t, you done did it now.

Cue more science denying.

 

[hal9000]

Oh, another problem I have with keto is that much of the weight loss is water weight, since you lose a significant amount of water during glycogenolysis.

Early weight loss is water weight. But people aren't losing 50-100 lbs of water.

Right, but they're also eating fewer calories, being more attentive to their eating habits, and working out. You can't have all these concomitant variables and then attribute the effect to just one of the variables.


Also, this from the Science journal review:

Moreover, many other aspects of the American diet changed in the past 40 years, including increased portion sizes, greater consumption of foods away from home, and more extreme food processing. At the same time, labor- saving technology and the digital age have led to declines in occupational and recreational physical activity, and budget shortfalls in schools have led to curtailments in physical education classes, recess time, and after-school recreation opportunities.

You can't just list all these variables and then say America is fat because of its high carb diet. He also ignored genetics and microbiome.

 

[hal9000]

Fair points too. I didn't say that food was THE biggest factor, just one factor.

I still say that most of our health problems associated with food are related to three things: quantity, and microbiome, and [size:16pt]genetics[/size].

Oh sh!t, you done did it now.

Cue more science denying.

Well, when you post irrefutable scientific evidence like memes, I guess you've got me backed into a corner.

 

[noone999]

Love it!

 

[freeride76]

Weight loss or gain isn't actually calories in vs. calories out. It's more accurately calories absorbed vs. calories burned. In other words, (a) the human digestive system doesn't run at optimal efficiency, and probably varies in its absorbtion abilities between individuals; and (b) certain types of energy-spiking foods probably lead to increased burn rates through mechanisms like NEAT and changed sleep patterns.

This seems to be contested territory but science moving towards this position.

 

[laidback]

Jenna Jameson before & after keto

https://www.instagram.com/p/Br5yC1jhPKx/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_state_control&ig_mid=W2OgDwABAAHTSwFP891i7QwIDuFs

 

[laidback]

Remember when in the 70's when science said eat less fat...

 

[Duffy LaCoronilla]

Remember when in the 70's when science said eat less fat...

Science is infallible bro. The sun revolves around the earth.

 

[manbearpig]

Remember when in the 70's when science said eat less fat...

Science is infallible bro. The sun revolves around the flat earth that is protected by warlocks and an ice wall.

Fxd

 

[Duffy LaCoronilla]

Remember when in the 70's when science said eat less fat...

Science is infallible bro. The sun revolves around the flat earth that is protected by warlocks and an ice wall.

Fxd

And don’t forget about the giant trees theory...

 

[afoaf]

Jenna Jameson before & after keto

https://www.instagram.com/p/Br5yC1jhPKx/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_state_control&ig_mid=W2OgDwABAAHTSwFP891i7QwIDuFs

holy sh!t...could you imagine if you married a porn star
and then she blew the fk up like that!??!

also....plastic surgery is so ugggggh.

 

[hal9000]

Remember when in the 70's when science said eat less fat...

Science is infallible bro. The sun revolves around the earth.

Nobody ever said science was infallible. Scientists acknowledge their mistakes, learn from them, and learn to accept new theories when presented with scientific evidence.