Warning, Keto, low carb

[BigStar]

4 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

i take them with a pinch of salt, he looks unhealthy, probably has a wiff about him

Then you'll need to start taking McDougall w/ a pinch of salt as well. Looks senile and decayed.

[BigStar]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't think I indicated the options were an extreme all protein diet and no carbs or a so called mixed diet so I am not sure why you call it a straw man argument.

Cutting out carbs means what is says. You either cut them or you don't. No low carb authority ever recommends cutting them out, so then whom are you arguing against? Reducing means something else yet again.

 

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

this one that shows running can be good as against necessarily wearing out your joints

That study refers only to current runners, not those already suffering knee, hip, ankle, and back pain, so a survivorship bias. Of course many with healthy joints that can tolerate running longer distances. Yet as one doc says,

 

If there is a subset of people who have joints that are negatively affected by running, they wouldn't likely be registering for a marathon.

 

If you read the underlying study, of the 3,804 surveyed,

 

1,892 reported a previous hip or knee injury, and 413 had underwent knee or hip surgery. Overall, 36.4% reported experiencing hip or knee pain in the past year and 7.3% had been diagnosed with arthritis.

 

So one may give it a try for himself and see how it goes. Small imbalances, misalignment, and instability, if they exist, create chronic issues. As one orthopedist says,

 

Osteoarthritis is not caused by normal wear-and-tear, it's caused by chronic joint instability which results in abnormal stress on the cartilage.

 

If you have chronic joint instability, you are at high risk of developing osteoarthritis, and running can speed up the process.

 

Having run marathons myself, known a lot of runners, and done quite a lot of reading over the years, I don't really recommend much running or even a lot of what's popularly called "cardio," after Ken Cooper. (Unless that's all you've got.) As Dr. Doug McGuff says,

 

Cooper believed (falsely, as it happens) that the aerobic subsection of metabolism was the most important—more important, in fact, than the totality of metabolic pathways that contribute to human functioning and health. He maintained that this one subsegment of metabolism could and should be isolated and trained. His belief in this regard has since been shown to be without foundation.

 

So then, having read Cooper et. al., I've finally come to agree that overall muscle training for functional fitness (not bodybuilding) is the better way to go. Safer, faster, more efficient, more useful--if done right. McGuff continues,

 

The center of metabolic health, then, is not the heart and cardiovascular system; it is the muscular system. That’s where the enzymatic activity takes place, and it takes place by means of an amplification cascade, so that when you activate the cause, the effect is much greater at the muscular level. It’s in muscle where all the “gold” that can be panned from exercise is found.

     --Body By Science

 

So my nod to "cardio" nowadays merely involves sprint intervals on a recumbent bike for a total intensity of 3 min a week. Could be excessive, but works verifiably well as predicted by Martin Gibala's classic study:

 

Twelve Weeks of Sprint Interval Training Improves Indices of Cardiometabolic Health Similar to Traditional Endurance Training despite a Five-Fold Lower Exercise Volume and Time Commitment

 

Been more research verifying his conclusions. He has a book out, if interested.

 

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The rest of your post is stuff and nonsense you seem to pull out at every opportunity, classifying anyone who doesn't fully comply with your point of view as being happy to cop a short happy life, on medications or whatever.

Meanwhile, you mostly ignored my questions raised by your post, so you're not really discussing in good faith, not suprisingly. Same implications get the same response, of course. And I did merely say, "most." ???? No nonsense, supported by long threads full of good, besotted, classic ANF Longevity Research such as Throwing caution to the wind and b u g g e r the diet – How about you and Exercise is everything. Gold mines, those two.

 

And normally, except for the genetically gifted, when you get older you basically have only two choices: healthy lifestyle or medication.

 

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I am not even disagreeing with your logic but simply noting that as you get fit and healthy listening to your body can help you in decisions about diet and exercise.

Listen, but verify. Now, it is a (cough) fact that your body may not be an unbiased advocate regarding your diet and exercise, as is illustrated on the streets daily. Throughout all these years, mine has always told me do something other than exercise, for example. It's always been an effort. But that's an affirmation, in an unintuitive sort of way. As P. D. Mangan says, Anticipating doing my workouts evokes some dread in me, and I want to keep it that way.

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by BigStar

[scubascuba3]

9 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Then you'll need to start taking McDougall w/ a pinch of salt as well. Looks senile and decayed.

you can't write someone off just because they are old, have to allow for it

[save the frogs]

40 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

you can't write someone off just because they are old, have to allow for it

the healthiest people are muscular. unless they take steroids. that doesn't count.

weight loss alone is not an indicator of health.

you can lose weight on a twinkie diet if you consume less calories than you burn.

that people lost weight on a rice diet doesn't mean it's a healthy diet. 

 

[scubascuba3]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

the healthiest people are muscular. unless they take steroids. that doesn't count.

weight loss alone is not an indicator of health.

you can lose weight on a twinkie diet if you consume less calories than you burn.

that people lost weight on a rice diet doesn't mean it's a healthy diet. 

 

The rice diet was only used on the extreme fatties, who couldn't lose weight and their health was bad. Us with a healthy weight don't need to bother with all that stuff, but still, an interesting subject

[hotandsticky]

7 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

How about stopping eating too much? 

 

If they eat only carbs and do not exercise they will still loose weight of they do not eat enough calories. 

 

A fat person eating only one cup of rice and a slice a bread with sugar on top ever day will loose weight....ans that all carbs.

 

Seriously though, why do people have to make their lives miserable on these 'latest best ever diets'?  Just eat more healthy food and consume less calories. 

 

 

Factually correct but ignores any aspect of being 'healthy'.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, ed strong said:

Don't forget you can't compare the utter tosh that gets produced in USA to products in Europe.

 

So many banned products in US food thst just aren't allowed to be consumed in Europe.

 

Ask Americans how they lose weight when holidaying in Europe when drinking and eating more than they  do when in America. That's how bad their foods and health are.

Any statistics and scientific researches?

[JustThisOnePostOnly]

I think everyone who is weight-conscious should go through the low-carb diet at least once simply to train the body to burn fat, and to do on demand, by simply restricting your carb intake.

 

I can report great results mixing this with brief periods of fasting, say 18-20 hours, at a time.

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, JustThisOnePostOnly said:

I think everyone who is weight-conscious should go through the low-carb diet at least once simply to train the body to burn fat, and to do on demand, by simply restricting your carb intake.

 

I can report great results mixing this with brief periods of fasting, say 18-20 hours, at a time.

Seems promising for me but still carbs from fruit, and a quarter rice portion once and awhile, so well 30g oat pudding in the morning 5 days a week with yoghurt 

[save the frogs]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Seems promising for me but still carbs from fruit,

my main source of carbs is fruit.

and milk/dairy also has some carbs.

a bit of honey. 

[ed strong]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Any statistics and scientific researches?

https://www.eatthis.com/american-foods-products-banned-in-other-countries/

 

Plenty of research out there, look at how high fructose corners syrup is being linked to diabetes.

 

Speak to Americans that have holidayed in Europe and how many go home lighter than they were when they left USA.

[Irrumator]

21 hours ago, HampiK said:

What I see, he always go to the wording low carb high fat. In Keto or low carb I never saw that you are allowed to eat hamburgers (Burger King, McDonalds) which he used as example.. or his fatty box.

So I guess this video is little bit different to what I understand in low carb food!

 

My food (low carb) is never fatty.. and always have salad or vegetables.

You should have a high component of fat in your diet if you are eating keto.   You re going about it entirely the wrong way.   You should limit yourself to 20 grams of carb per day - I use 18 grams daily.

Salads and many below ground vegetables are high in carbs and even some above ground vegetables.  Fruit, apart from a few berries a day is a no-no from the start. 

One standard  medium tomato has 7 grams of carbs so you are eating about one-third of your daily intake of carbs in just one tomato,  That;s just one example.  Having a plateful of salad daily is undoing all the other goof stuff you may have done.
It's also wasted all your prep time.

 

The aim on the standard keto diet is to eat 70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carbs (by those I mean grams per day), which will depend on your pre-keto weight and the weight you wish to attain.

 

Some people do variations of keto depending on their needs and preferences.  Try looking at myfitnesspal.com or fatsecret.com for more information and will also calculate your daily macronutients --- protein, fat and carbs)

 

I started keto on 8th May 2017 (so almost 6 years) and I lost a total of around 55 kilos in total and have maintained that for over 4 years.  I just changed my entire way of eating from before and have a large late breakfast, a light lunch and a snack-type dinner.  I never eat after 5.30 pm.  I don't eat again until about 9 am next day.  No late snacks, only a pit of lime juice, ice and soda before bed and DEFINITELY no cheat days, which only cheat yourself. 

 

The keto diet is the best thing I have ever done for my health and I'll never go back 'normal' eating which is anathema to good health.

 

[Irrumator]

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

Seems promising for me but still carbs from fruit, and a quarter rice portion once and awhile, so well 30g oat pudding in the morning 5 days a week with yoghurt 

Don't eat the fruit then.  Rice and oats?  Yogurts?  Forget it, you'll never lose weight that way.

[h90]

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

A good argument is keto on a limited time, but lifelong ? I do not think so, and as said many times before, diet is a belief, when you start talking about genetic diet suitable for your metabolism. In few cases it can be true due to health issues, but for normal people, there is no differences, just crap food and lifestyles.

 

Almost anything will help short time, and with a strong belief as well in what you doing, placebo effect will help to.

It helps on some kind of Epilepsy. That is a good reason for life long keto, but else it is very boring. Most probably we were in keto over the winter month in Europe before agriculture. But as you say: limited time.
Also for reversing Type 2 diabetics it only need some short time. So I don't see any reason for long term for healthy people.

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, Irrumator said:

You should have a high component of fat in your diet if you are eating keto.   You re going about it entirely the wrong way.   You should limit yourself to 20 grams of carb per day - I use 18 grams daily.

Salads and many below ground vegetables are high in carbs and even some above ground vegetables.  Fruit, apart from a few berries a day is a no-no from the start. 

One standard  medium tomato has 7 grams of carbs so you are eating about one-third of your daily intake of carbs in just one tomato,  That;s just one example.  Having a plateful of salad daily is undoing all the other goof stuff you may have done.
It's also wasted all your prep time.

 

The aim on the standard keto diet is to eat 70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carbs (by those I mean grams per day), which will depend on your pre-keto weight and the weight you wish to attain.

 

Some people do variations of keto depending on their needs and preferences.  Try looking at myfitnesspal.com or fatsecret.com for more information and will also calculate your daily macronutients --- protein, fat and carbs)

 

I started keto on 8th May 2017 (so almost 6 years) and I lost a total of around 55 kilos in total and have maintained that for over 4 years.  I just changed my entire way of eating from before and have a large late breakfast, a light lunch and a snack-type dinner.  I never eat after 5.30 pm.  I don't eat again until about 9 am next day.  No late snacks, only a pit of lime juice, ice and soda before bed and DEFINITELY no cheat days, which only cheat yourself. 

 

The keto diet is the best thing I have ever done for my health and I'll never go back 'normal' eating which is anathema to good health.

 

Good it's worked for you to lose weight, out of interest, do you have a whiff about you? and what value is your bad cholesterol?

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, Irrumator said:

Don't eat the fruit then.  Rice and oats?  Yogurts?  Forget it, you'll never lose weight that way.

You can loose weight on any diet!

 

When I lost 16 kg in 3 months, I eat Banana, oats, cheese,  cottage cheese, yoghurt, bacon, clean meat, alot of fish, rye kracker bread.

 

About 2700kal a day with Saturday as my eat day. Important info, I did not drink alcohol, cakes, chips or any candy at all.

 

The most Important, I walk in the morning, in the evening after work, and also hit the gym 5 days a week. Since then, I pretty much keep the same diet but not so strict anymore, but it takes dicipline, motivation and some work to maintain the weight, and in my opinion, the most important factors.

[LosLobo]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:22 PM, save the frogs said:

the healthiest people are muscular. unless they take steroids. that doesn't count.

weight loss alone is not an indicator of health.

you can lose weight on a twinkie diet if you consume less calories than you burn.

that people lost weight on a rice diet doesn't mean it's a healthy diet. 

 

"The healthiest people are muscular".

 

Do you have anything to support that hypothesis.

 

I would suggest that lacking any evidence, physique or body shape might not neccessarily have a direct correlation with the measure of health..

Edited April 7, 2023 by LosLobo

[h90]

13 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

"The healthiest people are muscular".

 

Do you have anything to support that hypothesis.

 

I would suggest that lacking any evidence, physique or body shape might not neccessarily have a direct correlation with the measure of health..

I think there is that problem with the "skinny fat" people that aren't big, but all they have is fat, very little muscle. High percentage of their body is fat.
That isn't healthy.
He might has meant that.

[LosLobo]

9 minutes ago, h90 said:

I think there is that problem with the "skinny fat" people that aren't big, but all they have is fat, very little muscle. High percentage of their body is fat.
That isn't healthy.
He might has meant that.

If he meant BMI is a good indicator of health he might have said it!

 

Yet his post would ignore the comparative healthiness of say, the slim flexible non-muscular athletes et alia .

 

 

[ozimoron]

34 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

"The healthiest people are muscular".

 

Do you have anything to support that hypothesis.

 

I would suggest that lacking any evidence, physique or body shape might not neccessarily have a direct correlation with the measure of health..

I don't believe it relates to the size of the muscles in any way. I don't believe that body builders are happier. That said, there is some evidence that muscle strength does contribute to happiness. Hence the recommendations for HiiT. There is also recent evidence indicating that regular HiiT prevents the onset of Alzheimers. That alone would support his argument.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

If he meant BMI is a good indicator of health he might have said it!

 

Yet his post would ignore the comparative healthiness of say, the slim flexible non-muscular athletes et alia .

To my point, non muscular athletes still have muscle strength. I don't believe it's about muscle size.

[LosLobo]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't believe it relates to the size of the muscles in any way. I don't believe that body builders are happier. That said, there is some evidence that muscle strength does contribute to happiness. Hence the recommendations for HiiT. There is also recent evidence indicating that regular HiiT prevents the onset of Alzheimers. That alone would support his argument.

If the OP really meant BMI, happiness or muscle strength perhaps we should let the OP support his hypothesis with his yet to happen argument and evidence.

 

The onus, under the tenets of the burden of proof, is his otherwise "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."  Hitchens's Razor.

 

Burden of proof - Wikipedia

[h90]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

If he meant BMI is a good indicator of health he might have said it!

 

Yet his post would ignore the comparative healthiness of say, the slim flexible non-muscular athletes et alia .

 

 

no you don't get the point...it is discussed for a while. People who are slim. But have a very high percentage of body fat.
"non-muscular" athletes have a lot muscle, and almost no fat.
What I mean are more, mostly girls, who never do any sport or any body movements. They are on the scale slim. But all the little weight they have is fat. Most probably a result of our smart phone obsession.
Called "skinny fat" and that is said to be also very unhealthy.
So you should be muscular....but not in athletic sense, but in the sense that a some percentage of your body should be muscle

[BigStar]

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I would suggest that lacking any evidence, physique or body shape might not neccessarily have a direct correlation with the measure of health..

@save the frogsshould clarify what he meant exactly, though he himself may be a little confused.

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, LosLobo said:

"The healthiest people are muscular".

 

Do you have anything to support that hypothesis.

 

I would suggest that lacking any evidence, physique or body shape might not neccessarily have a direct correlation with the measure of health..

To have muscles mass and strenght and maintaining it while you get older is essential for good health. Cant say this to often, a diet with daily intake of alcohol and crap food, is the short cut to bad health as well your bad sleeping pattern.

 

 

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/preserve-your-muscle-mass

 

 

https://www.weirtonmedical.com/blog/why-seniors-should-lift-weights/

[LosLobo]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

To have muscles mass and strenght and maintaining it while you get older is essential for good health. Cant say this to often, a diet with daily intake of alcohol and crap food, is the short cut to bad health as well your bad sleeping pattern.

 

 

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/preserve-your-muscle-mass

 

 

https://www.weirtonmedical.com/blog/why-seniors-should-lift-weights/

I thank everyone for their comments on my post.

 

But with respect, I am only being the "devils advocate" here.

 

And I have not any position on the subject or "any skin in the game".

 

I was only asking the OP if he could support his hypothesis.

 

Perhaps you could just forget I posted and leave it at that.

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I thank everyone for their comments on my post.

 

But with respect, I am only being the "devils advocate" here.

 

And I have not any position on the subject or "any skin in the game".

 

I was only asking the OP if he could support his hypothesis.

 

Perhaps you could just forget I posted and leave it at that.

Thank you very much to for your contribution to the thread. Very helpful.

 

[Hummin]

Indeed an interesting and important theme.

 

The more muscle mass you have, the lesser the risk of dying from a chronic disease than some of your peers. It turns out that just one hour of resistance exercise each week leads to a decrease in all-cause mortality risk

 

https://www.howardluksmd.com/muscle-mass-strength-and-longevity/

[Walker88]

5 hours ago, LosLobo said:

"The healthiest people are muscular".

 

Do you have anything to support that hypothesis.

 

I would suggest that lacking any evidence, physique or body shape might not neccessarily have a direct correlation with the measure of health..

You would be wrong.

 

While not a 100% correlation, muscular strength and health go hand in hand. I don't mean body builder muscles, but sufficient strength to, inter alia, bench ones weight, dead lift maybe 1.5X weight, have above average grip strength, the ability to dead hang for a minute, do 10+ pull-ups, do 50+ push-ups, hold a squat for a minute.....etc.

 

The resistance training necessary to meet those goals produces testosterone and HGH. Muscles also burn more calories, so being muscular makes it easier to keep the weight right. The increased blood flow and higher VO2 max aid cognition and boost the immune system. It also helps the skin stay young longer.

 

Plenty of recent studies show that regular exercise, especially resistance training, results in a substantial drop in all cause mortality.

 

Being in shape also simply feels good. One is nimble, agile and just looks better.

[h90]

36 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Indeed an interesting and important theme.

 

The more muscle mass you have, the lesser the risk of dying from a chronic disease than some of your peers. It turns out that just one hour of resistance exercise each week leads to a decrease in all-cause mortality risk

 

https://www.howardluksmd.com/muscle-mass-strength-and-longevity/

Sounds logic, but such studies are difficult to make. You'll hardly find someone who does regular exercises but eat only crap and is drunk every night.

So you may compare in the statistic people who live over all healthy and do exercise with people who don't care their health and don't do exercise.

Also a long discussion if resistance exercise or cardio vascular exercise is more important.