It seems like there is a lot of misinformation about the keto diet. So I'd like to field any questions and answer them to the best of my ability.
>what is the keto diet Keto is a diet that forces the body into the state of ketosis where glucose is no longer the primary fuel, instead fat is used as fuel for all bodily functions. In order to enter this state you need a diet that has a breakdown of roughly 70% fat 25% protein 5% carbs
>what are the advantages Since you no longer rely on glucose, you never worry about blood sugar levels. Minimal cravings, no blood sugar induced mood swings, etc. Also, weight loss is accelerated while on the keto diet by removing starchy, calorie-loaded foods AND your body is much quicker to burn stored fat instead of waiting and craving for carbs.
>what are the disadvantages Because of the lower insulin levels from minimal glucose, your body expels much more sodium through urine and sweat, so you need to consume a lot more salt and drink a lot more water to keep your kidneys and body healthy. Also while your body switches from glycolysis (utilizing glucose) into ketosis (utilizing fats) you're suffer from 'keto flu', which is flu-like symptoms from low blood sugar. People with low BF percentage also need to maintain a high calorie diet while on keto in order to maintain energy with their lower stored fat amount. And everyone will tease you for not eating carbs.
>"keto" diet is just another extreme, faddish, meme "diet" that isn't healthy or sustainable That's all anyone needs to know about it. >eat a balanced diet of healthy foods >cut out some carbs if you're trying to lose weight That's the proper way to live.
Dominic Cruz
>keto diet is a fad
Let's completely overlook the fact that the keto diet is literally the diet of every apex predator...ever.
Eli Hall
I don't see sharks eating kale, and they've been around for what....400 million years?
Samuel Scott
But they are eating keto.
Brody Perez
I'm looking to get into a Keto diet but I'm having a hard time finding adequate fatty foods that allow me to keep a deficit.
Carson Morris
Apex predators also shit in the same spot they sleep. So you want us to turn into Indians?
From the studies I've seen, keto seems to do well with obese and overweight patients in terms of losing weight. However, I wouldn't recommend it for children, as there have been some studies which show higher prevalence of certain health conditions. I wouldn't recommend it as anything more than a diet for losing weight and helping with certain medical conditions. It's probably best to see a doctor before you start it.
Ethan Collins
Part 1:
Do you have any goddamn credentials or references to spout off any of this crap? I have a bachelors in nutrition and I'm doing my doctor in physhiotherapy, which has some overlap here too.
I'm not gonna tear your whole piece apart but I will nitpick a few points:
>you never worry about blood sugar levels. Minimal cravings, no blood sugar induced mood swings Citation needed. Your body has so many metabolic pathways that are dependant upon glucose that you will still be producing and utilising a significant amount, even if you're eating zero net carbs. There will always be glucose in your bloodstream and hormone signalling pathways will always give you insulin spikes at various points in the day beyond the control of what you're eating. If you had zero glucose in your blood and a shitload of ketones, you would enter ketoacidosis where your blood becomes too acidic and you die. True ketosis is seen as a bad thing by your body and it works pretty hard to regulate your blood sugar levels even when you're not eating carbs through gluconeogenesis
>weight loss is accelerated while on the keto diet by removing starchy, calorie-loaded foods AND your body is much quicker to burn stored fat instead of waiting and craving for carbs. Well firstly, yes the research on weight loss in low carb diets does seem to show a quicker initial loss in weight, with roughly the same results after about a year or so. The reason for the initial advantage is because you will lose a good chunk of your muscle and liver glycogen stores which also attract a lot of water, so you lose some water weight because your body mobilises those glycogen stores to be used, because for a number of reasons, your body (typically) preferentially burns carbs instead of fats. As for the other claim about being quicker to store burned fat, while this may be true within the short term (hours), assuming you're on a diet with equal calories it will then be quicker to store consumed fat as well.
Anthony Gomez
Part 2:
It's still calories in vs calories out. Yes, that isn't entirely true because some calories are lost, malabsorbed, utilised by bacteria, some bacteria produces SFAs and provide you with calories etc, but for the most part - calories in, calories out. Doesn't matter your macronutrient breakdown, a calorie is a calorie to your body. So basically any claims about keto being better for weight loss are bunk. Better for diet adherence maybe but there's nothing physiologically superior about keto
>Because of the lower insulin levels from minimal glucose, your body expels much more sodium through urine and sweat, so you need to consume a lot more salt and drink a lot more water to keep your kidneys and body healthy Citation needed? I could just be forgetting from my undergrad days, but is there any pathway that connects insulin and natriuresis? AFAIK sodium and carbs have no relationship physiologically. People eat too much sodium and this is definitively bad for most people and DAMAGES their kidneys (doesn't make them healthier wtf) and irreversibly raises blood pressure in most people and on average, I would be telling people to reduce their sodium intake, not increase it.
Also consuming a large protein meal will typically give you the exact same insulin response as a large carb meal. Dunno what you're on about saying there's lower insulin, your glucagon isn't just raised the entire time you're on a keto diet ya silly
>Also while your body switches from glycolysis (utilizing glucose) into ketosis (utilizing fats) you're suffer from 'keto flu', which is flu-like symptoms from low blood sugar I have actually heard of this anecdotally, but I can't really think of any physiological reasons for this and I'm putting it down to placebo effect
Other arguments against keto: >misplacing a large amount of important food groups and nutrients by eliminating a lot of vegetables and grains - will end up with some kind of b vitamin deficiency which is bad
Carson Kelly
do I look like a shark ?
Nicholas Bell
Part 3:
>no real source of fibre. Fibre is essential in a healthy diet for your gut microbiota and also for better absorption of nutrients and significantly reduced colorectal cancer risk >the vast majority of studies show that keto is worse for athletic performance, and the majority of the field of sports nutrition is focussed on carb replenishment >keto for extended periods of time (like 6+ months) does seem to be associated with various gut problems and kidney damage >every serious dietician out there will advocate (for the vast majority of people) to eat a well balanced diet with plenty of whole grains, vegetables, legumes, etc, and they've studied this shit for a lot longer than you or I have and have arrived at that conclusion based on the best weight of evidence
Keto is a stupid fad diet and (while it is useful for some extreme circumstances) I hate it
Aiden Bailey
Keto is awesome What's your calorie intake at your deficit on Keto. Maybe some of us can help you out?
Luis Sullivan
1800 Macros I'm trying to hit are 135 protein 130 fat
Asher Hernandez
(1/2) So many memes in these posts... Do yourself a favor and read Stefasson book "The Fat of The Land", which reports a controlled scenario at Cornell where Stefansson himself and a colleague ate only meat and water for a 1 year. Many MDs and dietitians from Cornell, FDA etc observed the study, which had results so impressive that the chair of Physiology at Cornell at that time offered himself to write the "Introduction: Physiology" chapter of the book.
Get off the >every serious dietician out there will advocate talk. Don't get me wrong. I'm med student, M3, and I didn't know shit about this diet before actually reading into it. I can only imagine that the same happens with nutrition grads, given how much bs and "consensus" they'll use as arguments, instead of actually citing refs. of what they say.
The most usual one is that, you repeated: >no real source of fibre. Fibre is essential in a healthy diet for your gut microbiota and also for better absorption of nutrients and significantly reduced colorectal cancer risk
Will answer this a another post I've made the other day:
> " It is. The whole "fiber is necessary for proper bowel movements" is a bs that started with a casual observation of niggers eating palms and taking massive shits by Burkitt (yeah, that same one known for the lymphoma) while he was studying tribes of Africa. It was then reinforced by big agro companies who had to get somewhere to dump corn etc overproduction (cereals, heh).
> " There are plenty of studies showing that there is no benefit for the colon by eating fibers. In fact, it has been proposed that is damaging indeed. Which makes sense, physiologically thinking, since you're eating something your intestines can't digest and forcing it through the very delicate lining epithelium of the small intestines.
Jayden Powell
> " Medically wise, it's established you should not feed children with fibers if they get constipated, bc it increases risk of fecaloma due to increased luminal osmotic pressure and compactation of fecal matter. So take that as anecdote.
** This is all on the topic of FIBRE. Please, man, read the Stefansson book "The Fat of The Land" and analyze it carefully before propelling opinions over a topic you have not given the time to proper study.
Xavier Hughes
Let's come to accept that humans have higher IQs than pure predators and we are literally primates, who do not function as well on keto. Eat a diet comprised of fruits/berries, nuts/seeds, meat, eggs, honey, maybe some potatoes/statches sinve humans are well adapted to starches, and call it a day
Snacks/ - use snacks to help hit your macros --macadamia nuts, cheese, protein shake with water or nut milk, deviled eggs, pork rinds with sour cream, peanut or almond butter, low carb beer or a good beer if you have carbs to spare
Desserts- dark chocolate, Keto cheesecake, fat bombs
I shop once a week and I always cook up 2-3 meats ( except for my steaks) and boil 18 eggs, prep vegetables as much as possible every Saturday for the week ahead.
Angel Garcia
Kek, do keto dieters roleplay as lions and sharks now? What about elephants, hippos, rhinos, etc? They are strong as fuck herbivores and lions can't easily fuck with them.
Brayden Long
>depriving the brain of the shit it's designed to feed off in favour of an emergency substitute I don't think it's a great idea.
Zachary Stewart
This site has great Keto recipes and weekly meal plans
Ok, I really doubt that you're a med student from your conclusions here. If you are, you're not a very good nor scientific one.
The bulk of your argument here seems to be based on a book written over half a century ago about three people doing a stupid meat only diet and being healthier from it (I haven't looked into what biomarkers improved but I'll take your word that they got healthier). Books offering any kind of out there medical or dietary advice are almost always psuedoscientific scams by people looking to make money by having books with crazy headings and crazy promises. Almost everything in the field of human nutrition that's over 10 years old is considered out of date, and aside from a few key studies coming from famines caused by the second world war, etc, almost no books or papers written pre-about 1990 are seriously discussed at all. You're talking about a book by a dude with (presumably) no nutritional knowledge or training (and keep in mind that the field of human nutrition was suuuper sketchy back then) where they ate meat because the inuits did it (they've had centuries of positive genetic and epigenetic adaptations to their extreme diet of whale blubber and there's study after study showing how metabolically different these people are and how their diets should not be pushed on anybody but their extremely close genetic relatives) with a sample size of 3.
If you're using that as proof that hundreds of meta-analysis and high quality dietary studies saying that a high fibre intake is typically a good thing, you're wrong.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076480/ While the cochrane database is a good source usually, this is from over 15 years ago and is very specific in terms of which cancers it analysed and only looked at RCTs within a short timeframe. If you look at any of the large scale cohort studies or anything across a longer time-period you'll see the near unanimous conclusion that fibre aids in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer. Hell, even the world cancer research fund list it as one of their policies to prevent colorectal cancer.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC522822/ This is talking exclusively about psyllium supplementation and its effects on people with normal LDL levels in a tiny sample size. Plenty of better quality studies talking about the effects of fibre on reducing LDL particles through excretion.
Too lazy to look into all of your studies but mate, you're a shit doctor if you consider that a solid evidence-base
Ryan Wright
yo this is the dumbest post ive ever seen jesus christ
Jayden Price
...
Anthony Taylor
I hate most cheese, yogurt, and cream. I can never do Keto. The best I can do is even protein and fat with little carbs
Connor Moore
How is it dumb? Explain it to me like I'm dumb please. We aren't predators, the post I was replying to was dumb to make such a comparison and you're dumb for calling my post dumb.
Aiden Perez
Man, you put so much bs in this post that would have to get back to basic philosophy of science to uncover it. But if you won't give in the minimum effort to read in a book with suspension of disbelief, what use would it be...
Stefasson study is laid out out there. It wasn't designed by himself solely, bc obviously he didn't had enough background to support it. That's when the MDs of Cornell come into play. As I said, many other MDs and dietitians got interest on the matter mainly bc it was very controversial but supported by few but the best ones at that time.
But, the main point is: you didn't post any reason to doubt the quality of the study, except for bringing in the questioning of the authors without no clear point, and for saying that's old. It's not that you shouldn't care for the persona of the authors etc, but you ought to at least give in some reasoning for that.
The other point you made it was simply: > Almost everything in the field of human nutrition that's over 10 years old is considered out of date It's blatantly obvious that position does not concern the veritable truth nor the negative truth you might find through scientific approaches. You're just saying: "it's no good because it's old". If that was a line of thought to be taken serious and to its extreme, your own position as a nutritionist would be questionable, since you're past it now, and there are people more recently graduated.
It's needless to say that many many studies done in the past are in fact the building blocks of the many medical approaches made today. To keep it Burkitt related, even though it's fiber theory was shown to be most likely wrong, his reasoning of the Burkitt lymphoma is pretty much the same as adopted today.
As for the other topics, such as fibre, I really won't bother, because if you won't trust recent meta analyzes from Cochrane, what could I say in Vietnamese mtf transitioning supporting board to convince you.
Christopher Jenkins
It's ok homie I feel ya :'( You made a silly post responding to a silly post to highlight how silly it was
Brody Harris
>instead fat is used as fuel for all bodily functions.
no. google "gluconeogenesis".
Ethan Perry
>gluconeogenesis Fuck you weebs and your shit anime.
Nolan Sanders
kek
Jackson Ross
Alrighty now you're talking a little more reasonably but I'll still bite.
>Stefasson study Look I'm just not reading it because I don't have the time or ambition to read an entire book that I know is almost certainly bogus to impress some dude on an internet debate. I listed quite a few valid reasons why this information is likely less valid than something more recent, and again, it's a study from 60+ years ago with a sample size of 3. We had some pretty silly ideas in biology and the aetiology of certain diseases back then, just because it was supported at the time doesn't mean it wouldn't be laughed at today.
Again, go ask any registered practicing dietitian their thoughts on a meat only diet and they'll tell you it's silly and list a million reasons why. Here in Australia it takes at least 5 years of study to become a dietician, and I wanted to do that before changing to physiotherapy. I know how hard you have to work, how much science you have to read, and how much research you need to do to become one. They're smarter than both you or I on matters of human nutrition and I'd simply listen to them instead of not trusting their authority and being like one of those people that won't listen to their doctor about cancer treatments and will instead hope their crystals will heal them.
>ou're just saying: "it's no good because it's old". If that was a line of thought to be taken serious and to its extreme, your own position as a nutritionist would be questionable, since you're past it now, and there are people more recently graduated. You're partially correct here. Definitely a lot of our basic understanding of biology, physics, even our understandings of most of the major micronutrients comes from studies that are almost a century old. As you should know however, anything concerning epidemiology and complex disease states should be basically thrown out the window unless it's new enough to represent the current state of the science
Carson Howard
For instance, a large part of our current understanding of diet and chronic disease is the idea of systemic inflammation caused by a cascade of adipocytes and cytokines doing shit and wrecking your shit up from either obesity, a poor diet or both. If you look at papers from pre-early 2000s, you'll see almost no mention of the inflammatory drivers of say CVD, but now that's mentioned in just about every paper that's put out on the topic.
Human nutrition is so closely related to human physiology and function and we're still nowhere near having completely figured it all out. Also there is the whole concept of 'everybody's different'. Different genes, different microbiomes, different epigenetic expressions, just completely different phenotypes basically. So what may be good nutritional advice for one person may be terrible for another.
By and large, the main thing you should be looking at is the general trends and patterns you can observe across the most amount of people groups and cultures. That's where your generalised advice should come from, but then if you're giving individual advice, it should of course be individualised.
Also saying I'm not listening because a very specific and reasonably old cochrane study doesn't invalidate many more meta-analysis' is silly. You just don't seem very scientifically minded man.
For real, you sure you're a med student?
Leo Foster
(1/2) >We had some pretty silly ideas in biology and the aetiology of certain diseases back then, just because it was supported at the time doesn't mean it wouldn't be laughed at today. I guess I didn't made it clear before, but the point why Stefansson study is still valid: it does not approach what could be the causes or the physiology for this or that; but rather, he submitted himself and a colleague for a very rigorous clinical trial (they both had laboratory exams made daily basis, if I recall correctly, in the 1930s!), and then the researchers (MDs from many institutes) observed what happened. For instance, he accounts the bets made for how long it would take to develop scurvy, and the likings. But in the end, none of it happened. Ofc, it would be great if this study were to be replicated, for now we have the markers needed to evaluate the physiology, keeping it scurvy related, of Vit. C. However, be it replicated or not, I'm yet to find a mistake in their study draft or any reason to be suspicious of their reports.
You telling me to get to any registered dietitian and he'll tell me the same you're saying. And, from what I gather at med school, there's no doubt about that. Nor that they have put much effort into this, and if anything, ought to be intrigued by the Stefansson study, as were the dietitians of that time.
First things first, it's the observation that should dictate what should be recommended and should not. If a clean report like that does not support the current theories and what should be expected, it's a sign that we still don't know that much about the topic as we would like to.
Colton Kelly
(2/2) For instance, relating to scurvy, which was cited before, only in year 2000 the interaction of GLUT2-glucose-ascorbic acid has started to be reasoned out, even if we already knew that DHAA and glucose competed for the same receptor. This gives us a starting point to theorize what may have happened to Stefansson so he didn't get scurvy during that study. Up until that date, it was simply unknown, afaik. > jn.nutrition.org/content/130/1/63/F7.expansion.html
>anything concerning epidemiology and complex disease states should be basically thrown out the window unless it's new enough to represent the current state of the science Ofc. But that's not the case of the Stefansson study.
Julian Roberts
>For real, you sure you're a med student? Yes. Not american, though. I'm also interest on philosophy of science, and this is another reason why Stefansson study has gotten my attention, since it's one the few true phenomenological approach for health sciences that I found.
> Also saying I'm not listening because a very specific and reasonably old cochrane study doesn't invalidate many more meta-analysis' is silly. You just don't seem very scientifically minded man. Don't take me wrong. It was a silly remark under the shadow your post cast that it wasn't good bc it was old...
Landon Parker
What are some good keto cuts of meat? I've heard chicken breast is not a favourite.
James Rivera
You want cuts that have good amount of fat. Chicken thighs, pork tenderloin, etc
Dylan Hughes
My god you're so fucking wrong.
Nathaniel Jackson
>faddish, meme "diet" You say this but the Atkins diet has been popular diet since the 60s and runs off of if the same principals The diet itself has been around since the turn of the last century. It's not really a fad, might be more popular now than it will be in 10 years but it's no tabloid diet
James Myers
>We aren't predators
David Parker
Explain how
Zachary Cox
I find keto an extremely easy diet to keep to, I also found gluten free living to be very easy and helpful when I was running a lot of long distance races about 10 years ago. Bread had really never say well with me, but it does for others. There's gotta be some reason why it works better for others. My mom used to tell me it has to do with blood type, she eats a veggie heavy diet with lean meats and that works for her as well as my brother but I can't get that to work for me as well as they can't get keto to work for them.
Matthew Mitchell
why do you think there are so many push back to Keto from Veeky Forums?
Is it maybe for years Veeky Forums has held onto the "calorie in calorie out" motto and although it is true and worked for many people, even complicating the idea a little is too much for their brains. A rejection due to habit.
