Warning, Keto, low carb

[save the frogs]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I know you're joking but there'd be a return to smaller grocery stores as the huge supermarkets would go broke as they mainly sell processed and packaged foods. All the fast food chains would disappear. The government health budget would shrink dramatically, freeing up money for other things like education. Only the rich would crash.

Your answer is better than mine.

But that's precisely why there's so much garbage misinformation out there - to keep the current economic system afloat.

The whole economy would have to be re-structured if everyone started eating the right foods.

Good post, Oz-man!

Edited April 8, 2023 by save the frogs

[Hummin]

10 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

The economy would crash and then we'd all be eating each other in the streets.

ie The Zombie Apocalypse would happen.

Well, some cooperations would struggle for sure. If we did eat as we should, we would eat lot less volume, and less calories. 

 

And we should eat less red meat, thats another truth, at least some should. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, save the frogs said:

Your answer is better than mine.

But that's precisely why there's so much garbage misinformation out there - to keep the current economic system afloat.

The whole economy would have to be re-structured. 

Good post, Oz-man!

But what I don't buy is that academic institutions are part of this information cycle. Without exception, they always stipulate that donors to research can't attempt to influence the outcome of that research. Furthermore, drug companies are usually required by law to fund research into their drug trials and likewise can't influence the outcome of those trials. To believe otherwise is just more conspiracy theories. The real problem is industry itself lobbying politicians with donations to not crack down on their crap food cash cows. Look at what happens to suggestions to implement a sugar tax.

[save the frogs]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

To believe otherwise is just more conspiracy theories.

Yes, but even Time magazine (mainstream media) is TELLING you that there are conspiracies.

 

https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/

Experts Say Lobbying Skewed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines

 

 

[save the frogs]

22 minutes ago, Hummin said:

And we should eat less red meat, thats another truth, at least some should. 

Why? 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Why? 

because large numbers of credible authorities are saying so. Not all of us want to walk on the wild side.

 

There is strong evidence that eating high amounts of red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer.

 

https://www.aicr.org/cancer-prevention/food-facts/red-meat-beef-pork-lamb/

 

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-guidelines-and-food-labels/red-meat-and-the-risk-of-bowel-cancer/

 

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1in3cancers/lifestyle-choices-and-cancer/red-meat-processed-meat-and-cancer/

 

https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

 

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/does-eating-processed-and-red-meat-cause-cancer

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-meat-and-colon-cancer

 

https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/your-guide-to-eating-less-red-meat.h26Z1590624.html

 

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2021/07/red-meat-cancer-risk

 

https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer-risk

 

https://www.samitivejhospitals.com/article/detail/risk-of-colon-cancer-from-red-meat

 

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/link-red-meat-cancer-need-know/

 

https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-processed-meat/

 

https://www.sutterhealth.org/health/nutrition/does-meat-cause-cancer

 

 

[ozimoron]

 

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Why? 

With a balanced diet, and maximum 2500kal a day, you really do not need that much red meat to, make one gram pr kilo body weight. 

 

One of the biggest reasons of health problems is overeating! 

 

I need 86g protein on daily basis, thats it. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Hummin

[save the frogs]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

There is strong evidence that eating high amounts of red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer.

that's a knockout punch man!

not 1 but 13 links from 'reputable' sources!

check mate!

you got me.

ps. I think the OP will be ticked off by your glycemic index post!

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

16 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I need 86g protein on daily basis, thats it. 

yeah, that's a nice round number.

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

yeah, that's a nice round number.

Thats spot on my friend ????

[save the frogs]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

There is strong evidence that eating high amounts of red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer.

just watched another health podcast. some dentists recommend flossing your teeth and other dentists don't. not all doctors agree on everything. it's not always to do with lobbying or politics.

i guess it's the same with red meat and a lot of other things.

regarding cancer, the middle east seems to have the lowest rates in the world. 

not sure why .. maybe they smoke and drink less. maybe it's the fasting?

they do eat meat ... 

ok, i'm outta here.

Edited April 9, 2023 by save the frogs

[BigStar]

15 hours ago, ozimoron said:

But what I don't buy is that academic institutions are part of this information cycle. Without exception, they always stipulate that donors to research can't attempt to influence the outcome of that research.

Very naive. Sponsors may not pay the researchers directly (though they have) for influence, but they don't really need to.

 

Funding bias

 

When big companies fund academic research, the truth often comes last

 

. . . the funding source can influence the design, conduct, and publication of research. Although more difficult to define, sponsorship can also influence the research agenda, namely the initial step in conducting research, during which the research questions are chosen and framed.

     --https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187765/

 

Which applies to both industry and gov't. The gov't often sponsors politically favorable research, and industries may in turn determine those politics, in a snake-eating-its-tail scenario. Gov't and industries have the money for these expensive studies. No money, no research, no jobs and careers for academicians and researchers (boo hoo). Disagreeable researchers likely to find unfavorable outcomes get shut out from the research studies one way or the other, just as independent academicians will be shunned or drummed out of institutions.

For an example of a broad corrupt influence (without resort to any facts that are cancelled on our beloved forum), Nina Teicholz  published in the British Medical Journal a blistering analysis of the scientific report that serves as the basis for the 2015 dietary guidelines. Yet conflicts of interest continue but aren't disclosed. So the gov't dietary guidelines, actually determined by the food and pharma industries, not to say rabid vegans, PETA, climatoids, LGBTQ whatever, and male feminists. No experts on low carb permitted. When the "guidelines" are published, the legacy news outlets all witlessly cheer from on high--and get quoted, perhaps right here on the forum. ????

 

Our analysis found that 95% of the committee members had COI with the food, and/or pharmaceutical industries and that particular actors, including Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon, and the International Life Sciences had connections with multiple members. Research funding and membership of an advisory/executive board jointly accounted for more than 60% of the total number of COI documented.

     --Conflicts of interest for members of the U.S. 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

 

Unbiased.???? No conspiracy theory, fact.

 

So I pay more attention to the independent thinkers less likely to be biased, and I think for myself in taking all sources into consideration. I look at new studies, I know how to interpret studies, I read responses to the studies (often published in Letters To The Editor), and I read books.

 

Unfortunately, as much as 90% of the published medical studies can't be relied on anyway. Meta analyses may also be flawed, using flawed studies, a flawed model, and predisposition bias. See

 

Lose, Gunnar, and Niels Klarskov. “Why Published Research Is Untrustworthy.” International Urogynecology Journal, vol. 28, no. 9, Sept. 2017, pp. 1271–74. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3389-1.

 

and

 

Ioannidis, John P. A. “The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.” The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 485–514. www.milbank.org, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.

 

So I can't and don't claim to be right all the time (really, ha ha), but I do have a pretty rational, objective viewpoint likely to be unpopular here for various reasons.

 

Oh, find a response to the latest anti-moderate drinking study here.

 

Since 1.0 RR (i.e. equal mortality) is just barely in the confidence interval, the paper can proudly proclaim there is "no significant difference (at 95% confidence)"

Nowhere does it mention that moderate drinking is still estimated to be healthier with 92% confidence though.

 

And now some entertainment:

 

Scientists Discover Strong Correlation Between Trusting Government And Eating Paint Chips

 

We've had this discussion before, I know well how you think, so no need to waste time having it again.

Edited April 9, 2023 by BigStar

[ozimoron]

Hangry bacteria in your gut microbiome are linked to chronic disease – feeding them what they need could lead to happier cells and a healthier body

 

The ultraprocessed food that makes up an increasing part the American diet has removed vital nutrients from food. Adding those nutrients back may be important for health in part by feeding the microbiome and mitochondria that turn food into fuel.

 

Research has consistently shown that the Mediterranean diet and other whole food diets are associated with better health and longer lives, and ultraprocessed foods and drinks like soda, chips and fast food, among others, are linked with poor health outcomes such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases.

 

Equally important is what to add back into diets: fibers, phytonutrients, micronutrients, missing fats and fermented foods.

 

https://theconversation.com/hangry-bacteria-in-your-gut-microbiome-are-linked-to-chronic-disease-feeding-them-what-they-need-could-lead-to-happier-cells-and-a-healthier-body-199486

 

 

[3NUMBAS]

saw a hospital prog where a guy had acute stomach pains and they  mentioned ketodiadosis cos his    insulin was out of wack .he needed morphine 

[Irrumator]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:53 AM, TimeMachine said:

There is more to the cholesterol story. It's not just about good and bad. The bad can be split into good and bad also. There is limited info on the matter. At the heart of the problem is money. The money makers don't care about truth. They want the dollar. Can you imagine if solar panel battery technology was backed an allowed to flourish. The oil companies would go bust. That can't happen, just the same as McDonalds, alcohol  and tobacco companies.

As a friend who is a Professor of Child Psychiatry once said to me 'Measuring cholesterol is a very imprecise science'.

 

As to the scaremongering and obviously  unknowledgeable OP, he needs to stop reading rubbish and learn something about medicine before posting.

 

I've been eating keto since May 8th 2017 and within 8 weeks my blood pressure had dropped from 145/95 to 100/60.

 

The practice nurse was astonished and stopped using the little battery machine and took it the old way using a sphygmomanometer - same result.  

 

I eat about 70 to 80% fat, 20% or so of protein and 5% carbs.  My total cholesterol is slightly raised, true, but that's because high cholesterol runs in the family (familial hypercholesterolaemia) and my old mum had high cholesterol until the day she died aged 101 and one day! 

So fiddlesticks to your half-cocked notions and reading matter,  I lost 55 kilos overall and I have kept it off for almost 6 years.

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, Irrumator said:

As a friend who is a Professor of Child Psychiatry once said to me 'Measuring cholesterol is a very imprecise science'.

 

As to the scaremongering and obviously  unknowledgeable OP, he needs to stop reading rubbish and learn something about medicine before posting.

 

I've been eating keto since May 8th 2017 and within 8 weeks my blood pressure had dropped from 145/95 to 100/60.

 

The practice nurse was astonished and stopped using the little battery machine and took it the old way using a sphygmomanometer - same result.  

 

I eat about 70 to 80% fat, 20% or so of protein and 5% carbs.  My total cholesterol is slightly raised, true, but that's because high cholesterol runs in the family (familial hypercholesterolaemia) and my old mum had high cholesterol until the day she died aged 101 and one day! 

So fiddlesticks to your half-cocked notions and reading matter,  I lost 55 kilos overall and I have kept it off for almost 6 years.

Your total cholesterol is up because you are eating high cholesterol fatty foods. It's that simple. The danger is atherosclerosis.

[scubascuba3]

4 hours ago, Irrumator said:

As a friend who is a Professor of Child Psychiatry once said to me 'Measuring cholesterol is a very imprecise science'.

 

As to the scaremongering and obviously  unknowledgeable OP, he needs to stop reading rubbish and learn something about medicine before posting.

 

I've been eating keto since May 8th 2017 and within 8 weeks my blood pressure had dropped from 145/95 to 100/60.

 

The practice nurse was astonished and stopped using the little battery machine and took it the old way using a sphygmomanometer - same result.  

 

I eat about 70 to 80% fat, 20% or so of protein and 5% carbs.  My total cholesterol is slightly raised, true, but that's because high cholesterol runs in the family (familial hypercholesterolaemia) and my old mum had high cholesterol until the day she died aged 101 and one day! 

So fiddlesticks to your half-cocked notions and reading matter,  I lost 55 kilos overall and I have kept it off for almost 6 years.

80% fat how awful, what's your bad cholesterol? you've not mentioned it funny enough

[Irrumator]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

80% fat how awful, what's your bad cholesterol? you've not mentioned it funny enough

About 260 total (pretty normal for a 74 year old) but neither my cardiologist or I are worried because of the long words I used earlier which  you plainly don't understand. 

Nor do you understand it's the ratio between total chol,  HDL and LDL levels which are important and mine are spot on.  

 

A nice meal of fried belly pork and a couple of fried duck eggs (amongst other high fat foods have kept me healthy for 6 years now.  Never felt better, 55 kgs off and kept off and I'm not living in the 70s, afraid of eating fat the way you see to be doing.  I bet you still cut all visible fat off your steaks.   ????

Fancy still believing in over 50 year old tosh and basing your life on such outmoded ideas!

 

 

 

 

[Irrumator]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Your total cholesterol is up because you are eating high cholesterol fatty foods. It's that simple. The danger is atherosclerosis.

Of which I have no sign.  

[Irrumator]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Your total cholesterol is up because you are eating high cholesterol fatty foods. It's that simple. The danger is atherosclerosis.

Rubbish.   Try Googling 'familial hypercholesterolaemia' then argue with my cardiologist and my (late) mother. But  she died of the effects of extreme old age, not some ancients 1970s fad about eating fat.    

You do know that cholesterol is a natural product produced by the body in the liver, yes?  Ingesting more from fatty foods intake will be regulated by the liver anyway.

 

Worse for you is sugar intake and my glucose levels are 78 with a ranger f 75 to 150.  Aain, my cardiologist is delighted with my results.

That's because sugar is the killer, not fat.  What such old hat ideas you espouse.  

Edited April 12, 2023 by Irrumator

[scubascuba3]

20 minutes ago, Irrumator said:

About 260 total (pretty normal for a 74 year old) but neither my cardiologist or I are worried because of the long words I used earlier which  you plainly don't understand. 

Nor do you understand it's the ratio between total chol,  HDL and LDL levels which are important and mine are spot on.  

 

A nice meal of fried belly pork and a couple of fried duck eggs (amongst other high fat foods have kept me healthy for 6 years now.  Never felt better, 55 kgs off and kept off and I'm not living in the 70s, afraid of eating fat the way you see to be doing.  I bet you still cut all visible fat off your steaks.   ????

Fancy still believing in over 50 year old tosh and basing your life on such outmoded ideas!

 

 

 

 

i guess letting yourself get 55kg+ overweight you needed something like keto, you did well getting to 74, no doubt loads of meds helped

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Irrumator said:

Rubbish.   Try Googling 'familial hypercholesterolaemia' then argue with my cardiologist and my (late) mother. But  she died of the effects of extreme old age, not some ancients 1970s fad about eating fat.    

You do know that cholesterol is a natural product produced by the body in the liver, yes?  Ingesting more from fatty foods intake will be regulated by the liver anyway.

 

Worse for you is sugar intake and my glucose levels are 78 with a ranger f 75 to 150.  Aain, my cardiologist is delighted with my results.

That's because sugar is the killer, not fat.  What such old hat ideas you espouse.  

I know all of that and none of it prevents you from getting more LDL cholesterol from food. I also have familial high cholesterol. LDL cholesterol from fat is dangerous as well as sugar. Not just one thing kills you. You seem to pretend that there are no bad cholesterol in food and that only familial cholesterol is the problem.

Edited April 12, 2023 by ozimoron

[save the frogs]

5 hours ago, Irrumator said:

Of which I have no sign.  

high animal fat consumption is not a problem.

in fact, the body needs that cholesterol. 

there's a massive conspiracy to sell statin drugs.

hence all the dietary misinformation and shills in the nutrition world. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

You seem to pretend that there are no bad cholesterol in food

the body needs cholesterol. 

the cholesterol becomes a problem when it oxidizes.

 

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-oxidized-ldl-698079

Oxidized cholesterol is made in the body when low-density lipoprotein (LDL), sometimes called “bad” cholesterol, goes through a chemical reaction. Oxidized cholesterol is what builds up on the artery walls ...

 

Foods That Cause Oxidized Cholesterol

• Trans fats: Foods higher in trans fats include pastries, deep-fried foods, potato chips...
• Sugary foods: 

 

Foods That Remove Oxidized Cholesterol

Fruits and vegetables:

Healthy fats: 

Edited April 12, 2023 by save the frogs

[Irrumator]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:50 PM, scubascuba3 said:

i guess letting yourself get 55kg+ overweight you needed something like keto, you did well getting to 74, no doubt loads of meds helped

No meds at all, just healthy eating in sensible proportions, Mr Troll. And learn to read, I got to 64 kgs, not 74.

[scubascuba3]

6 hours ago, Irrumator said:

No meds at all, just healthy eating in sensible proportions, Mr Troll. And learn to read, I got to 64 kgs, not 74.

Age 74 you said, BTW many wouldn't consider 80% fat diet healthy eating

[h90]

14 hours ago, maudeads said:

Is it really worth starting a keto diet if you don't go to the gym? I do exercises at home and run in the park in the evenings.

Worth for what? If you are a runner and healthy I don't see any reason to start keto.
If you are massive overweight or diabetics type 2, than keto might be the solution to your problems but if you don't have problems there is not much point into it.

[BigStar]

21 hours ago, maudeads said:

Is it really worth starting a keto diet if you don't go to the gym? I do exercises at home and run in the park in the evenings.

Low carb's always good, however.

[TravelerEastWest]

5 hours ago, BigStar said:

Low carb's always good, however.

Nothing wrong with whole food plant based complex carbs.

 

Lots of people with diabetes both type 1 and 2 for example do really well on that type of diet...

 

I am one of them - but I am only one person lots and lots of documentation out there...