Ketogenic diet, it works.. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 01:01:49 am
content: Like many others I had put on a few pounds during the lockdown and so had my wife (much less than me though) Anyway we both decided to go on a ketogenic iet and so far its worked out well and Ive lost more than 20 lbs in just around two weeks.Some of what we have found ourselves eating has been strange. (imagine me using lettuce to make a bun substitute so that I can hold a cheeseburger. in my hands to chow down on it. Basically we are eating lots of protein including meat, but no carbs, at all. Meat and fats are okay, but no carbs.. No bread, no rice.. Lots of other stuff.Its fun. If I keep on losing weight like this I should be able to fit into lots of old clothing I was saving in the hope that I could do something like this.Anyway, just wanted to share this idea. It works and its pretty healthy, according to Nutrition.org. (my go to spot for such data)Have any of you tried it? What foods have you liked? We are looking for new meal ideas..

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 10:20:03 am
content: It works until it doesn’t. Enjoy your kidney stones, fatty liver, cholesterol and constipation. It’s not healthy at all.Regarding the immediate weight loss. That’s massively bad news. The first 10lb is basically retained water you’ve lost. The remainder is loss but you shouldn’t be losing that fast. You’ll end up looking like a raisin and with secondary problems in my first paragraph. Skin takes a lot of time to shrink. Slow changes are an order of magnitude better for you.Just get a decent calorie counting app for your phone (nutracheck works for me), be honest and set 1lb a week as a target and increase your exercise. In my case walking did it. It’s not all about losing weight but about gaining fitness and learning how to eat properly. Keto doesn’t teach you how to eat properly so when you’re done you’ve learned nothing and are screwed. Then the weight goes back on again. And you end up bouncing around forever. That is literally all my peers who did it.After looking at myself in the mirror and going “Jesus Christ you’re a template fat ham”, I’ve gone from 230lb to 147lb over the space of 2 years doing just calorie counting properly with no medical or health issues incurred. In my late 40s. I can run a 5k now. I regularly do 25k hikes. I don’t hurt after either of them

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 10:23:26 am
content: Quote from: cdev on August 29, 2021, 01:01:49 amI think I found it.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 10:54:15 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on August 29, 2021, 10:20:03 amHere's a piece of trivia I found interesting:https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-reconstruct-lewis-and-clark-journey-follow-mercury-laden-latrine-pits-180956518/QuoteLewis and Clark were a pair of famous early American explorers of the West (Mississippi River to Pacific Ocean). Their diet was mostly meat from hunting. Modern laxatives don't contain mercury.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 10:58:57 am
content: Yeah definitely a big problem that with a meat heavy diet. My father, a fat Swiss man, consumed mostly dead things and little fibre and had chronic constipation all the time and was on medication for it for the last decade of his life. Balance is really important to a healthy life which is where these fads fall over.I think the best case for a keto diet is to attempt to reverse borderline type 2 diabetes more than anything when there’s an immediate trade off that needs to be made.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 11:30:28 am
content: Quote from: cdev on August 29, 2021, 01:01:49 amIf you value your health, then quit with that diet! Loosing 20lbs in 2 weeks is not healthy. Also you need the carbs because they are the human body's primary fuel. Don't eating carbs is like trying to run your car on water. It is just that your body is more forgiving than your car short term.If you are serious about losing weigth and keeping it up long term then you need to count calories so you can limit your intake to what your body actually needs. You likely need to become more active as well. Eating a lot of meat is not healthy as well; especially red meat is linked to getting forms of intestant cancer.I'd stop using that nutrition.org website as well. A website promoting a ketogenic diet is just bad. Keep in mind that diet books are big business so guess where sponsor money is going. Better stick to what the WHO suggests:https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 11:39:19 am
content: If you want to lose some pounds you can help me with a garden renovation (actually two).Very healthy! Good for heart and circulation.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 11:48:45 am
content: 7km walk in 1 hour every day and no diet needed. Moreover you are on fresh air and it will train your muscles, joints, heart, etc, etc.PS: get rid of your car..

author: Dave
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 11:51:24 am
content: If you want to lose weight long term, you need to change your eating and exercising habitspermanently. Extremely restrictive diets are only ever going to be short term things and then when the target weight is reached, you go back to your old eating habits and putting weight back on.It's really as simple as balancing the calories going in with the calories going out. Whenever there's an excess going in, you're going to store that in fat, and vice-versa.Also be careful with the exercises you pick if you're obese (not saying you are, @OP, just talking in general). Taking up jogging or hiking might not be the best idea for your knees and hips. Swimming, on the other hand, would be perfect.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 12:34:08 pm
content: Stop eating after 6pm. Works better than any diet.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 01:13:11 pm
content: Slightly more complicated than that. Eat a medium breakfast, large lunch and small supper. Avoid eating after 6pm but still drink lots of water!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 01:50:57 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on August 29, 2021, 01:13:11 pmSorry, but that doesn't work without counting the calories. Personally I had to reduce to 2 meals a day in order to keep the number of calories within reasonable limits.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:01:05 pm
content: Also avoid sugary drinks (!!) and limit salt intake to almost nil.. You will get rid of some kilos without any diet too..

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:10:17 pm
content: Those looking for a healthy, sustainable diet should look up "Freelee the Banana Girl".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:13:04 pm
content: Quote from: imo on August 29, 2021, 02:01:05 pmBut that is because you basically de-hydrate your body. If I eat some salty food then I can easely retain a few liters of extra water which then gets shed during the days after.

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:33:58 pm
content: But I'm so addicted to sugarOnly luck I cant diggest it so does not gain weightI did try keto for some time and feel great

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:41:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2021, 01:50:57 pmYeah you have to count the calories still. Just eat smaller meals! Today for me:Breakfast: scrambled egg, bacon, mushrooms, toast, baked beans.Lunch: home made gobi dal, rice, chocolate mousse.Tea: oats and raisins.Snacks: raspberries, blueberries, peanuts.Exercise: 5km walk, 20 minutes on the various gym machines in the park.I’m down 280 cals still. On the line on protein though so I’m done.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:44:34 pm
content: Quote from: Miyuki on August 29, 2021, 02:33:58 pmIf you’re addicted to sugar you can slowly ween yourself off it with something like Coke Zero. It has a sugary hit but no sugar in it. Then slowly alternate it with water.I can’t actually eat anything terribly sugary now. It tastes horrible. And when I started this breakfast was a full fat red bull and a Mars bar

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:45:25 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2021, 01:50:57 pmIt's not just about the right amount of calories based your daily activities. Genetics and the bacteria in your guts also play an important role. So everyone has to find his personal balance.

author: ace1903
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:50:12 pm
content: Just be aware that with such fast weight lost you will loose hair also. I enjoyed fast results and perfect blood sugar (HbA1c ) but I was unaware that I will loose hair also.Now I would recommend to others reading a bit more before trying it. Probably it can be balanced with proper nutrients and wise choosing what should be on the dishes.Just note that is not trivial like just take meat and everything will be fine.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 02:55:43 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on August 29, 2021, 02:41:13 pmTry with:Breakfast: mushrooms, toast, baked beans.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 03:05:32 pm
content: Not enough fat and protein then.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 03:22:22 pm
content: Breakfast: fish (salmon, tuna, mackerel, herring, trout, sardines), mushrooms, toast, baked beans.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 03:27:04 pm
content: That’s a good suggestion.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 04:03:52 pm
content: A friend of mine was a REALLY big guy, 6' 6" at least, and over 500 Lbs. We were kind of worried about him. He did the same thing, no carbs, and dropped at least 250 Lbs over a couple years. He was at a meeting with a friend, and until he opened his mouth, I had No IDEA it was him! I almost fell over!So, it does work!Jon

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 04:37:54 pm
content: It is not that anyone here argues that it dies not "work", the thing is it is an extreme that may cause its own problems.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 04:47:08 pm
content: Exactly that. The issue is a lifestyle change needs to be made and you can’t sustain keto forever. So when you’re done you’ve not changed your lifestyle.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 06:40:47 pm
content: This is the kind of subject where everyone has an (un)informed opinion and belief. Science is non-existent. Millions of "research" reports and articles are out there, and every single one that the Cochrane Collaboration has looked at has been shot down.Today it's also been infested with "save the world" beliefs, which have nothing to do with nutrition ("meat is bad for the climate").If you want to inform yourself about the nutritional part, I recommend:Gary Taubes, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", UK version "The Diet Delusion".Contrary to most other books, it's not written by someone propagating an own agenda, but a respected scientific journalist.Put your money where your mouth is, it'll set you back around 20 Euro on Amazon (paperback).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 06:53:52 pm
content: Quote from: Benta on August 29, 2021, 06:40:47 pmWhat the Corona pandemic has shown loud and clear is: one expert is no expert. And the same goes for dietary advise.Truth in real science only exists by consensus between a large group of scientists looking at many angles. Which is why it is much better to follow diet advice from neutral bodies like the WHO; those are composed by a group of scientists who are not cherry picking information. If Mr Taubes is really on to something, the WHO will adapt their dietary advise accordingly but only if it is backed by solid evidence. Mr Taubes could be completely wrong or even falsifying his findings. After all dietary books are big business so there is plenty of incentive to dream something up that may sound to make sense but in fact is a whole lot of BS.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 07:00:54 pm
content: Exactly. My advice came from the NHS not someone trying to sell an ideology or books.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 07:14:26 pm
content: You both missed the "journalist" part. He's interviewing (and reporting about) people that know something about nutrition and that's what the book is about.And dissing the Cochrane Collaboration in favour of WHO means you don't understand UN politics.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 07:38:30 pm
content: Quote from: Benta on August 29, 2021, 07:14:26 pmThat is even worse. Journalists are not experts in the field they write stories about and more often than not they are strongly biased.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 07:46:09 pm
content: Ah, well. Trumpism at it's best...Never mind. You and BD139 (old, medium power transistor... fits somehow) cuddle between yourselves.I should have stayed away, these kind of threads lead nowhere. My mistake, sorry.

author: olkipukki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 07:57:01 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on August 29, 2021, 01:01:49 amPersonally, I didn't know anyone who be able to sustain a long term whateverfancydiet they have been applied and result they have achieved initially.The hard to be first in 500m sprint, but much harder to keep running a marathon and stay "alive", a mindset is different...IMHO, a simple* approach with individual adjustments always works... without "analog" voodoo black magic, just stupid "digital" count until one* it's sound simple, not easy to get quality ingredients

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 08:17:52 pm
content: There is one problem with general rules. Different populations tend to have vastly different metabolism.You can clearly see it even in animal experiments. With the same amount of food and the same physical exercise. They can be very different in weight and fat/muscle ratio.Recommendations from WHO and similar bodies work with the "everyone is the same" narrative. Because they expect everyone is equal = everyone is the same. (Might have outdated information, but I think they will stick with it for a long time)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 08:46:45 pm
content: Quote from: Benta on August 29, 2021, 07:46:09 pmIt is not Trumpism at all. On the contrary, it is common sense. The error in your reasoning is to take someone's assertion that questions an established truth as a new truth without any scientific backing. Science doesn't work that way.Example: a while ago it was argued that combining (IIRC) spinach with some type of foods was not good because it caused formation of unwanted chemicals in the digestive track. There was so much scientific support for this to occur that the official advise was not to combine spinach with other foods (better safe than sorry). Deeper research revealed that it was a false alarm.Quote from: Miyuki on August 29, 2021, 08:17:52 pmThat is true but nevertheless what is healthy and unhealthy food is pretty much standard.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 09:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: imo on August 29, 2021, 03:22:22 pmBaked beans make you fart.The more you fart, the better you feel.Baked beans for every meal!

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 09:55:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2021, 08:46:45 pmHis "Trumpism" reaction was to your knee jerk response to immediately condemn someone's work because they are a journalist. He was responding directly to this:Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2021, 07:38:30 pmMoreover, you seem to be incapable of differentiating between a Red Top's political journalists and science journalists who work at places like "Science" and "New Scientist".I'd suggest that you go out and find who the Cochrane Collective are before you start give lessons on what constitutes "good science" to someone advocating taking notice of their research. "Cochrane Reviews" are widely regarded as the Gold Standard in evaluating the collected published research in areas of Biomedicine.

author: BrokenYugo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2021, 10:43:21 pm
content: It works for some people and certainly highlights what I consider the main problem with the American diet (eat a bunch of simple carbs, starving in 4 hours due to sugar crash, repeat twice daily) but it isn't magic, calories in calories out still applies, you don't lose weight without creating a calorie deficit somehow.As mentioned by others 10lb/week is super aggressive, 1%/week is generally recommended as a maximum, that said the first couple weeks tend to give weird numbers, the next couple are when you'll see the real trend.Personally I went from 240 to 160 in a year without much more than a cheap scale and counting calories in my head, ate whatever, learned what to avoid along the way.Drink a lot of water.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 02:28:51 am
content: No bread or carbs. So, no toast.No beans. Everything else is okay. Mushrooms.and cheese.... mmmm... Most greens are kay too. I am eating burgers and cheese held and wrapped in lettuce..Quote from: imo on August 29, 2021, 03:22:22 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 03:59:13 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on August 29, 2021, 09:55:31 pmPublished papers are only the first step towards a new theory becoming accepted (or not) by the scientific community. IOW: the results of a paper may not be true after all; the only thing a reviewer can do is check whether the used methodogies and data analysis are sound. A reviewer is not going to repeat an experiment to see if the results are right or wrong.So in the end publishing a book based on some (cherry picked?) research papers is not going to be a good source of factual information. It could be a good summary of the state of research but you shouldn't rely on it to be the absolute truth. The scientific proof just isn't there.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 04:35:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 31, 2021, 03:59:13 pmI can't decide if you're trying to argue that all scientific knowledge is conditional, therefore we can't know anything, therefore there is no point in writing anything down for public consumption or reading it, or that you've just decideda priorithat you don't like the book in question, without reading it, and are forwarding random arguments to support that position. Given the knee jerk attitude displayed to all journalists I find myself minded to believe the latter.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 05:25:54 pm
content: No, my point is very simple: there is a whole flurry of governmental agencies (each developed country has one) which basically all consists of groups of scientists that universally agree on the food pyramid (presented in one way or another and tweaked for local eating habits) as the best diet for humans. As I wrote before: science is truth by consensus amongst scientists. How does a book about diet claiming something else fit in there? From a truth by consensus perspective not at all because it is written by one author quoting from papers selected by that author.It is like taking a random book about programming techniques and saying that is the authorative book on programming techniques. Start such a topic on this forum and you'll see a whole lot of people will make good points about what is wrong about that book, why and which books might be better. It probably turns out none of the books is absolutely true due to personal bias of the authors. IOW: books can be informative but they don't contain the absolute truth.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 05:53:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 31, 2021, 05:25:54 pmSo I was right. A book you haven't read that you've formed ana prioriopinion about. You haven't even used the information sources at yourimmediatedisposal as presented by Benta to determine the nature of the content before condemning it.Veryrational, scientific and not an emotional response at all.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 06:15:46 pm
content: Oh glory a meta discussion.I would discard the book as well regardless of the credibility or nature of it. Discuss my reasoning

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 07:05:25 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on August 31, 2021, 06:15:46 pmToo many big words?

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 07:13:29 pm
content: Excellent retortRealistically it'd be better for your objectives to go for a walk than read it. Lest thou end up a fat man with tsundoku. I speak from experience.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 07:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on August 31, 2021, 07:13:29 pmThe solution to 50% of medical problems, and 95% of first world medical problems is "Get some exercise you 'orrible little man. ... And get your 'air cut!".

author: ace1903
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 07:45:17 am
content: There is noting wrong if one reads and is interested in improving own health. Even here, advices given by others had bad effect for me.I walked 5 days per week 8km (~5miles) from work back to home 4 years with zero effect(gained weight and increased blood pressure).When pandemic started I started over weekends to go to nearby hill and walking 1km uphill to middle point that is 250m higher than starting point and 1km downhill. Gradually increased to going to the top which is 800m higher than starting point. I now I am doing that exercise without any difficulties and I can do any other exercises also. For me walking without elevation has zero effect, for someone else maybe has great benefits.Someone mentioned zero salt diet. Unintentionally I lowered my salt intake and got nasty headaches. Took a while for me to find what caused them. French fries with a ton of salt is something that should be eliminated butthat other extreme with zero salt is something only for 90years old people with difficulties to move. Healthy middle-aged individual needs salt intake. Excess intake eliminate with sweating during exercise.I wish this to be place where opinions and experiences are exchanged. After all, we all have similar working day with lot of time spent seating in front of PC, we enjoy more to see film or read technical literature than going to gym.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 07:55:34 am
content: Quote from: ace1903 on September 01, 2021, 07:45:17 amSome good points about walking. The thing you need to do is elevate your heart rate which is not something that you tend to do with casual walking. This is one reason I took up running and hill walking. Alas the fitter you get the harder it is to raise your heart rateThe salt thing is a good example of where fads fall over. Balance is the only answer.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 08:26:05 am
content: Some interesting points have been made here.Yes the ketogenic ketogenic is bad. I've tried it and it didn't work for me in the long term. No population permanently eats a ketogenic diet.It's good to be aware of calories, but wouldn't recommend counting them rigorously. It's yery difficult to estimate how many calories you should be earing and it's almost impossible to accuractly calorie count, as food labels are often wrong. It doesn't train you how to eat properly and is not a healthy thing to do, from a mental health perspective.Exercise does work, but it's important to increase your heart rate, for it to be effective. I gain weight, when I'm sedentary for long periods, even if I watch what I eat, but when I'm very active, I don't have to worry about it. Indeed I often have to make sure I eat enough, otherwise it affects my sleep. I find myself waking up with hunger pangs.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 03:09:08 pm
content: This bears repeating! Its that important.Quote from: Bud on August 29, 2021, 12:34:08 pmFor those who have bloodwork they can refer to, who are interested in quantifying aspects of their health this collection of papers on nutrition-related biomarkers looks interesting.https://academic.oup.com/asn/pages/biomarkers

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 08:36:38 pm
content: I just read this:https://nutrition.org/ketogenic-diets-what-the-science-says/Reminds me of this classic scene from Woody Allen's "Sleeper" still one of my favorites. And so much of it rings true today.This text is from the paper..High intake of dietary fat is commonly believed, by both scientists and the general public, to cause obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Although many Americans adhere to dietary guidelines that focus on reducing intakes of saturated and total fat, rates of many diet-related chronic diseases have markedly increased.Ketogenic diets, which provide ≥ 70% of calories from fat, have been dismissed as fad weight-loss diets. However, ketogenic diets have a long history in clinical medicine and human evolution. Noting that ketogenic diets have elicited controversy, David Ludwig (New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School) provides a comprehensive review, published in The Journal of Nutrition, of evidence-based studies on the effects of ketogenic diets for a wide range of health conditions.Ketogenic diets may be more effective than low-fat diets for the treatment of obesity and diabetes. In addition to the reductions in blood glucose and insulin achievable through carbohydrate restriction, chronic ketosis might confer unique metabolic benefits resulting in reduced risk of certain cancers, neurodegenerative conditions, and other diseases associated with insulin resistance. Based on available evidence, a well-formulated ketogenic diet does not appear to have major safety concerns for the general public and can be considered a first-line approach for obesity and type 2 diabetes.High-quality clinical trials of ketogenic diets will further scientific understanding of long-term effects and their full potential in clinical medicine. Key unresolved questions that warrant further investigation include: How does LDL cholesterol elevation with carbohydrate restriction affect cardiovascular risk versus triglyceride elevation with fat restriction? Does the reduction in blood glucose and insulin on a ketogenic diet improve vascular health? Are there susceptible populations or conditions for which a ketogenic diet would be contraindicated? What is the efficacy of a ketogenic diet for long-term weight loss and behavioral change? Does chronic ketosis provide unique metabolic benefits, beyond those obtained by a low-glycemic index, moderate-carbohydrate diet?References Ludwig DS. The Ketogenic Diet: Evidence for Optimism but High-Quality Research Needed. The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 150, Issue 6, June 2020, Pages 1354–1359,https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxz308.

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 07:28:05 am
content: Quote from: ace1903 on September 01, 2021, 07:45:17 amMammals cannot live without salt, they need it either from food or add pure salt if not enough salt is in food.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 10:00:48 am
content: Quote from: Miyuki on September 02, 2021, 07:28:05 amI think you need to distinguish between "zero salt" and "zero added salt" or low-salt diets.It's impossible to exclude all salt from your diet since it's present in unprocessed meat and vegetables. Most people get enough salt in their diet already and if you're eating processed foods, it's quite easy to exceed recommended levels.I personally never add salt to any food after cooking (with the exception of popcorn). I use salt (sometimes) during cooking, but a lot of that is lost during the cooking process (e.g.: in pasta water). There are many, more tastier ways to add flavour, chilli and herbs for example.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 10:02:13 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 01, 2021, 08:36:38 pmI question the point about human evolution and ketogenic diets. There's no evidence to suggest that any human population has survived for long periods on a ketogenic diet. There are populations living of diets high in animal fat and protein but they're not ketogenic. When an animal is freshly slaughtered and eaten soon after, there are still sugars in the blood and muscle tissue. People have only live off ketogenic diets during periods of famine.Another issue is how can we feed the world from a low carbohydrate diet, in a sustainable manner? Most diets are high in animal protein and fat and raising animals requires huge amounts of resources, rather than growing crops.Many populations live on high carbohydrate diets and don't suffer from obesity. 100 years ago, obesity wasn't an issue in the west and people didn't live off a low carbohydrate diet there, back then. Quite the opposite. Meat was relative expensive and people tended to eat more carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread and potatoes. Obesity rates have increased, along with consumption of meat. Of course I'm not saying that meat consumption causes obesity, as there are populations who mostly eat meat and don't get fat.It's not carbohydrates, meat, or fat, which are the problem, but excess energy intake. Obesity is caused by a diet rich in energy dense foods, combined with a sedentary lifestyle and genes which promote fat storage. The last point about gense is important, because not everyone gets fat, when given the same diet and lack of exercise.As far as the fat vs carbohydrates debate is concerned: it probably makes sense to get proportionally more calories from fat, for those who are sedentary, with extra calories required by active individuals provided by carbohydrates.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 10:30:48 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 02, 2021, 10:00:48 amThat is exactly what I mentioned in my above post - to limit salting to "almost nil".Most products you are buying today contain salt/sodium - the food manufacturers add salt/sodium into everything in order to make your taste buds happier.Excessive intake of Sugar and Salt kills you..https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salt-reduction

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 12:12:38 pm
content: Quote from: imo on September 02, 2021, 10:30:48 amNo, lack of sugar and salt kills you. It's this kind of simplistic wrongheaded sloganizing that drives me mad. Both salt and sugar areessentialto normal body function. Your body ultimately converts all the carbohydrates you ingest to sugars. Your body cannot extract energy from carbohydrates until they have been converted to sugars, specifically glucose. This is so fundamental that your body starts converting carbohydrates into sugars the second you put them into your mouth - by secreting saliva that contains the enzyme ptyalin. The idea that sugar is fundamentally bad in itself is wrong. Consuming your carbohydrates as sugar in anything more than small quantities is probably a bad idea, we evolved on a diet low in simple sugars, so much so that we evolved ptyalin and you mess with evolution at your peril. But the populist idea that "sugar is bad" is fundamentally wrongheaded.The fuss about salt is somewhat misplaced too.Somepeople most definitelyaresensitive to excess salt intake - there very much is such a thing as salt sensitive high blood pressure, but they are in the minorityandthe size of the effect is less than one is led to beleive. Excess consumption of salt, for most people, will not lead to high blood pressure. For most people excess salt is simply excreted. If you define salt sensitivity as a change of 3 mmHg in blood pressure between normal (roughly 100 mmol/d = 2.3g Na = 5.8 g/d NaCl) and high (200 mmol/d = 4.6 Na = 11.6 g/d NaCl) sodium intakes then about 40% of the population are salt sensitive. Note that 3 mmHg in the context that high-normal blood pressure is 120 mmHg and the bottom of 'high blood pressure' is 140 mmHg - so a normal versus high salt intake only accounts for 15% of the margin between normal and high blood pressure - much less if you take the margin between the centres of the two bands - when it's only 5%. It's also worth noting that for a small minority this cuts the other way, there are people who have abnormally low blood pressure (symptomatically so) unless they have high levels of salt in their diets. Thus making a medical intervention (low/zero salt diets) on the whole population is clearly wrong headed. If you're going to go down that route where do you stop? If you're going to treat the whole population when only 20% might be affected (40% salt sensitive times 50% with high blood pressure) what about 10%? That level would mean that we should start treating everybody with asthma drugs.Nobody knows why the population is getting fatter. If they did we would have stopped it by now. It is pretty clear that there is something in the modern diet or environment that is messing with homeostasis but no one has yet figured out what it is.Ascribing it to a simplistic energy intake <=> expenditure balance is wrong. If you consume the energy equivalent of one small packet of crisps/chips a day or a large biscuit/cookie (100 kcals) more than you expend in energy you will gain weight at the rate of 1 kg every 35 days. If you did that for 10 years you would gain 105 kg. This does not happen (except in such extreme cases that they feature on 'reality' TV). The truth is that most people who are fatter than they ought to bestopgaining excess weight at some 'set point' which varies from individual to individual, but is usually in the 10-30kg bracket. If energy intake <=> expenditure imbalance was the cause they would just keep getting fatter, not stop at some point.The fundamental problem here is that there is a lot of "we don't know" in public health combined with a lot of pedalling simplistic easy to understand public health messages. Worse still, working doctors seem to work on the basis of receiving a simplistic message rather than a more nuanced one and give every impression of treating individuals on this basis. It's so prevalent in medicine that it's earned it's own catchphrase"Treating the numbers rather than treating the patient".One thing we do know, and the numbers add up at the epidemiological level, is that people who get significant physical exercise don't seem to get fat and don't get high blood pressure. Being sedentary is most definitely bad for you (he said sitting at his arse in front of a computer). The amount of exercise by the way is nothing like the amount that would be needed to burn off excess calorie consumption - it's just that people who take significant exercise seem to have better regulation of homeostasis.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 01:49:07 pm
content: The set point is an interesting theory and there's a lot of evidence to support it. The resting basal metabolic rate of a person is partly determined by energy intake: overfeeding increases it and underfeeding reduces it. this means that if someone diets, their body slows down, to compensate for the energy deficit. The Vermont prison overfeeding study and Minnesota Starvation Experiment have proven this.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786199/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_ExperimentMy personal experiance, shows this is true, as far as dieting is concerned. I've suffered from an eating disorder in the past, lost a lot of weight to the point of chronic malnutrition, then with some support and counseling gained it all back, plus s couple of extra killos. When I starved, my metabolism slowed to a crawl, as my energy intake was a fraction as it should have been. My body temperature fell to borderline hypothermic and my heart rate plummeted. My mental health deteriorated to the point of being severely depressed. On refeeding, I first suffered from oedema, heat palputations, as my body switched to glucose, causing potassium levels to fall. Then my metabolism skyrocketed and I felt hot all the time. At first my mood improved, but then I developed anxiety, especially as I suffered from binge eating. It wasn't a linear process. I slipped back into starving again, before finally recovering properly. It took a couple of years for the binge eating to stop, even though I hadn't been dieting and was a bit overweight at the time.On the other hand, I've found exercise affects my bodyweight. I think settling, rather than a set point, is probably more accurate. When I'm physically active, my body seems to be pushed more to accumulating more lean body mass and less fat, whereas inactivity results in the reverse. The effects of phsyical activity aren't immediate. It takes a year or so, for my body composition to significantly change, in response to exercise levels. There also seems to be some hysteresis. It takes more exercise to lose fat, than keep it off. Note that when I mean exercise, I'm talking about strenious exercise, enough to get me out of breath and my heart rate up, for a decent length of time.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 02:18:34 pm
content: I did vegetarian low carb for around 4 months which is a bit more challenging than normal low carb.(I didn't go vegetarian just for the period, I was already vegetarian)First 2 weeks was 20g of carbs per day which is very hard, but is doable. Then 30g a day which is easier.And then 35g/day after 2 months.3 or 4 days after starting you feel horrible and you body reacts like you are trying to kill it. Mainly because your body is so used to getting all the sugar and carbs it wants for energy and it fights tooth and nail at the thought of having to burn fat instead for energy. This is the reason many of people give up. The first 2 weeks are bad.But after around 2 weeks, 3 for some people, that goes away and you feel ok.By this point your body is entering ketosis and burning fat for energy. One think you do notice at this point is that you no longer get hungry like you did before. What most people think of as 'feeling hungry' is really just a carb craving. eg Your body has burnt all the sugars it has available and now wants more. So once you're in ketosis you don't get hungry the same way.By the end of the 4 months I had lost 18kg.I did notice some negative side effects, i got minor leg cramps but it wasn't a big deal.And as others have said, you can get a bit constipated since you are radically changed your diet and it takes the body some time to figure things out.After 2-3 months i felt so light on my feet and had so much energy which was an awesome feeling.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 03:06:01 pm
content: @Cerebus: before you comment a post, read it carefully..

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 03:45:28 pm
content: Quote from: imo on September 02, 2021, 03:06:01 pmI'll freely admit to reacting to the "Sugar and Salt kills you.." sentence at the end which shouldneverbe said unqualified or use words like "kills". It doesn't. A sentence like that is sensationalism worthy of the Daily Mail, or the National Enquirer, or whatever substitutes for journalistic toilet paper wherever the reader is. "Excess salt or sugar intake may be harmful in some cases and harmless in others." doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it? We'resupposedto be engineers, we'resupposedto be better than that.That you've edited that final sentence to tone it down, and that that edit postdates my post, kind of proves that you knew it to be an erroneous statement. The new version isn't much better because it still promulgates the myth that there's something innately "bad" about salt or sugar. There isn't. Excess intake of water kills you. People automatically recognisethatsentence as true but hyperbolical, but when it comes to sugar or sodium, they don't. Sugar and sodium are not poisonsper se, they are not even harmfulper se, they are essential ingredients of all cellular lifeforms, eukaryotes, prokaryotes, plants, you name it.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 11:39:35 pm
content: QuoteIt's not clear what you're saying there, and in the simple sense I think it is wrong. The reason is that as you get bigger you need more calories just to stand still, so eating an extra 100kcal/day, all other things being equal, would have you plateau at some weight. To keep gaining weight indefinitely you'd need to consume that extra 100kcal PLUS the extra calories that your body now needs just to stay alive. It's kind of like compound interest.For most people, there's a limit to how much they can eat, so they tend to plateau.(This is also one reason why any calorie-restrictive diet works well at the start but then tends to not do so well as the weight drops off, leading to comfort eating and the like due to lack of progress.)

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 01:20:01 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on September 02, 2021, 11:39:35 pmRead it again.QuoteThe point ismorethan you need. If you got larger and needed more, then that 100 kcals is on top of that.The original point was to illustrate that it requires asurprisingly small imbalancebetween food intake and energy expenditure to gain (or lose weight). To maintain any semblance of weight control requires a homeostatic mechanism, and there is one, and for a long time it worked perfectly for the vast majority of people. For some reason in modern western society it is not and we are seeing the 'set point' that control mechanism aims at changing.It's irrelevant to that argument whether that expenditure is doing external work or simply metabolic expenditure. For what it's worth, the actual metabolic activity of fatstoresis low.I'm sure, you could figure out a mathematical model where, at the limit, weight would be limited by the ability to intake food balanced against the metabolic load of reaching a certain weight. But it's not what happens to the vast majority of people. Most overweight people are at most a few 10's of kilos overweight, not 100s of kilo - but there are examples of the latter which indicates that is it possible to consume enough to reach that condition but the vast majority of overweight folks do not. The 'fattest man' on record at the moment is 635 kg!Remember, I'm talking about 1 biscuit a day more than you need - how much would have to need to stuff into your face to meet your metabolic requirements where you couldn't manage to stuff in one biscuit extra.Looked at another way, if there wasn't an effective mechanism to tell you to eat more or less you would be unable to adjust your level of physical activity to demand without incurring permanent weight loss or gain. This whole thing is very finely balanced and it is a surprisingly small number of calories that your body needs to add or subtract to keep things at the set point it is aiming for.You want to play with the maths you can find a model of basal metabolic versus weightherewhich is:Basal Metabolic Rate = 11 x Body Weight in kg - 3 x age (years) +272 * gender (f=0, m=1) +777 kcals.A standard figure for the calorific equivalent of fat storage is 3500 kcals = 1 Kg body fat.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 05:55:44 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 02, 2021, 03:45:28 pm@Cerebus: You posted your Thesis 1 hour after my last edit.I edited it because I knew you will jump on it and you will spend hours elaborating a Thesis about something such obvious like that an excessive intake of sugar and salt is not good for your health

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 06:53:26 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 02, 2021, 12:12:38 pmNo one is arguing the science behind this. The point I was making, is that most people get their daily requirements of salt and sugar by simply eating normally and in many cases, exceed the recommended amount... by a lot! For example, if you eat a single serving of typical (Australian) white bread for breakfast (without any toppings), you're already 30 to 60% of your way to the daily recommended intake of salt for a normal adult. The amount is even more if you choose the gluten free option! There is no "minimum" recommended dietary intake of sugar, rather a recommended maximum since sugar is present in just about everything in various forms. If your blood sugar is low to the point where it's making you unwell, either you're not eating properly or you have some other underlying condition that needs to be addressed.I almost never add salt to any of my food as it already contains enough (naturally) and sugars are found in fruits, vegetables and just about every other food, processed or not. The only time I reach for supplemental sugar is if I'm baking a cake, otherwise, I never add it food. There's no need. My doctor confirms this and my blood work always comes back within normal ranges.The only people who need to supplement their salt or sugar levels are those who aren't eating properly, have allergies which means they can't eat a normal, balanced diet or have some other underlying health condition.Remember, I'm talking about your normal, average person. Of course there are always those who have a higher calorific requirement, such as athletes, but that then becomes something other than the norm.

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 07:41:41 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 02, 2021, 12:12:38 pmMost probably it is connected to "processed" food, with added simple sugars and super fast digestion with high GI and densityIt lacks "self regulation" of "whole" food, you can't get huge excess of calories from a piece of meat and vegetables, you just cannot eat the sheer volume of it and also the same volume makes you feel more full, this relates not just to the volume of food but also to some hormones released during digestion, this is a very important part of body weight regulation mechanism as studies showsIt if is mainly caused by "processed food" it will be a thug fight from manufacturers of them, like tobacco and alcohol companies showCan you imagine that fight about adding a warning, as is on every pack of smokes, to every chocolate bar?btw I'm now fasting the second day and feels great

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 11:18:26 am
content: Quote from: Miyuki on September 03, 2021, 07:41:41 amThe thing is that previous generations also had access to processed foods. White bread has been a thing for a long time and formed a much larger proportion of earlier generations diets than it does ours now, so that can't be the whole answer.Highlyprocessed foods, yeah they are only really a thing for the last two generations. Whatever is the cause it isn't a single faceted thing like processed foods. Anecdotal non-evidence: I used to know a fat vegetarian hippy, I mean really fat, who only ate wholefoods.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 11:58:20 am
content: QuoteI did, which is why I queried what you meant. Clearly, if you did that (kept adding above your static needs) then you would get infinitely heavy, albeit at a slowing rate. But you then said:QuoteWhich is what lead me to think that you mean what it looked like you were saying at all. Hence my rider, which you seem to have missed. Perhaps you could read it again.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 12:48:05 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on September 02, 2021, 11:39:35 pmIt's a myth that calorie restrictive diets fail, due to comfort eating. In most cases, it is not comfort eating, but eating due to an incease in hunger, as a direct result of energy restriction. I suppose one could call it comfort eating as, it relieves the discomfort of hunger, but that's not what most people think of when they hear the words comfort eating.Again, refer to the Minnesota starvation experiment. I appreciate that most diets aren't that extreme, but you don't have to lose that much weight to experiance similar psychological symptoms, albeit milder.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_ExperimentI'm not saying that eating for emotional reasons, rather than true hunger, isn't a thing, but it's overestimated and doesn't seem to be the main reason most diets fail, or most people are overweight.Quote from: Miyuki on September 03, 2021, 07:41:41 amOn the other hand fasting for emotional reasons seems to be quite common. Yes, it can feel good, but it isn't healthy to do it for too long. It also tends to cause problems with overeating in the long run. Now if you find yourself being tempted by high calorie food, you pretty much know it's been caused by fasting/resistriction.

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 02:04:56 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 03, 2021, 11:18:26 amOf course, it works together with modern lifestyleAnd vegetarian buying any of those "alternative meats" or so, they are way worse than most "normal" foods. They have insane amounts of salts, fats and are so highly processed that digest almost immediately. And I tryid plenty of them.I'm not a biologist. But for me, the chemistry explanation sounds like one of the main factor."Natural" food needs a long time to digest and has time to release digestive hormones to regulate hunger and weight."Processed" food is so easy to digest it broke this cycle. You can just eat it indefinitely and it just passes by your stomach, because it detects it ready to pass to extract nutrients. And it already is when you swallow it.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 03:02:41 pm
content: Indeed.Anecdotally speaking, I avoid processed and convenience foods where possible these days. It has a positive psychological impact too. Actually making your meals is really important.Secondarily yes those meat substitutes are terrible. The only way they have flavour is bucket loads of salt. Quite frankly if you are going to go vegetarian or vegan or whatever, don’t look for a meat shaped solution; look for something new and exciting to eat. There’s a nice cafe near me (http://theretreatkitchen.co.uk/) which does a lot of nice dishes.Alas I’m a carnivore so this is required to be supplemented with something else later. But I do enjoy the place.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 04:56:35 pm
content: QuoteWell, there are many causes of failure and you'll perhaps note that I didn't suggest comfort eating as a cause of failure, only that it might take placeafterfailing. After all, if you don't fail you don't need comforting.QuoteI think that's quite inappropriate. The experiment was well-named since there was a continuous period of starvation. Further, they record 3,500 kcal as being a daily intake for normal people, which is quite adrift from what we think now.Starvation diets like that will ultimately fail for the same reason that eating 100kcal excess every day will lead to being massively overweight - it's unsustainable and failure is built in. A more appropriate diet is like the 5:2 where your overall intake is reduced but your noticeable daily intake seems not to be. Perhaps it works because you fool yourself that you're not on a diet (except for the days when you are), or because doing it for a day at a time is bearable.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 07:13:19 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on September 03, 2021, 04:56:35 pmRead it again. They didn't say 3200kCal is normal. They titrated their energy intake to result in the volunteers achieving their ideal weight, which required 3200kCal on average. The high number, for modern standards, might be because a good number of them were malnourished and the fact they were physically active, rather than sitting around all day.QuoteIt doesn't have to be a starvation diet to induce some of symptoms of starvation. Ordinary weight loss diets do, but they're milder and more subtle. Unfortunately the evidence suggests it doesn't matter what the restricted diet is. It's bound to fail in the long time. It has little to do with self-control, or falling back into bad habits, but an increase in hunger, resulting from an energy deficit. Even if you manage to fool your mind into thinking you're not on an energy restricted diet, your body knows it and it will eventually affect your mental state, even though it might not be obvious.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 07:14:28 pm
content: Yeah it does that. I've been on 1700 cals most of this week. Today I ate half of pizza hut without even thinking it.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2021, 09:06:04 pm
content: Diets are all bullshit. I've known people all my life that are constantly on the diet yo-yo losing weight only to gain it all back and then some. If you want to be in better shape you have to make permanent lifestyle changes. Eat fewer calories and exercise more, for get about fad diets, there is no quick fix, you can't get into shape and then go back to your old habits once you achieve your goal. We have a pretty good understanding at this point what sort of foods in what quantities are healthy for us.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2021, 01:26:44 am
content: But, for most of human evolution, until the last fifteen thousand years, or so, basically, that is how we ate. For the most part we were foragers. We weren't agriculturalists.Imagine if we returned to that diet because it was healthier. Land use would change a lot.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2021, 01:34:46 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 02, 2021, 12:12:38 pm

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2021, 08:00:33 am
content: Quote from: cdev on September 04, 2021, 01:26:44 amIt would. Unfortunately not a fan of nettles myself.Although a couple of weeks back on a group walking trip we completely cleaned out some blackberry bushes. Everyone was covered in the juice like three year olds.There’s a lot of stuff to eat out there though if you know where to look.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2021, 03:00:13 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on September 04, 2021, 01:26:44 amWas it really healthier? Malnutrition declined significantly, with agriculture and is now virtually non-existent in counties with industrial farming.Agriculture was present 100 years ago, when obesity was rare.

author: MultiMike
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2021, 02:38:20 pm
content: Cdev... I just joined this forum today so I'm getting to this party late, and I totally was not expecting to see this as a topic.I have used low-carb as a sporadic reducing diet for years. This is not how it is meant to be used, but that's what I have done. When I am on low-carb I lose weight. When I fall off the wagon I gain it all back.I was an extreme low-carb booster. I lost over 100 pounds, then 80, then 50... it was all the same weight, though.Low-carb works. It does. It's not unhealthy. If you can do low-carb for life then you will lose weight and keep it off and be fine.If, like me, you hear the siren-call of the doughnuts and go back to your old way of eating then you will go back to your old weight. This is not a failure of the diet, this is a failure of 'the operator'.There are some odd, magic-ish things about low-carb that don't seem to make sense, but it works.So does low-calorie eating. They both work. The question is which one can you stick with?It's far more important to change your habits than your actual diet. Do you eat in front of the computer? Stop that. Stop snacking willy-nilly.Come up with new habits. Add them one per week and keep them going.For instance, a possible habit would be that you don't eat after 8pm normally. (exceptions happen, but 90% of the time you don't)Another possible habit would be that you drink a glass (500ml / 2cups) of water 10 minutes before eating. If you have finished your meal and you want seconds then you can do that but you drink another glass of water first.Another possible habit would be taking the stairs instead of the elevator.Something that is a lovely addition to your day is to drink a big glass of lemon water when you first wake up. Gets the guts working. If you are lazy like me then your lemon water can just be a pitcher in the fridge with water from the tap with 1/4 cup of lemon juice (from a bottle) added. No sugar. It's excellent.Increasing physical engagement is key. Walk. Do light weight training to build muscle. Muscle burns calories. Calories still matter, even on low-carb.Taking a multi-vitamin is helpful.Salt substitutes like NO-SALT are high in potassium. Since you're not eating bananas you could be a bit light on potassium which causes some people to suffer from cramps more easily, so using one of these potassium-based salt substitutes may make you feel better. When people talk about 'low-carb flu' it's often a potassium issue.Some people talk.... endlessly... about all manner of horrific side effects of low-carb. I have not experienced any of these. If you find constipation to be an issue then drink more fluids and maybe add psyllium fiber to your life.If you find that your weight loss slows down then you should increase your activity level. Don't try to starve yourself. Let yourself eat good food. Try to limit bacon and other processed meats with high nitrates. Use them for flavour rather than as a major constituent of the meal. Eat a pound of pork loin? For sure! Eat a pound of bacon? Not as good a choice.Artificial sweeteners work way better on low-carb because your tongue has nothing to compare it to. If you take a sip of diet cola while eating a Mars bar it will taste like battery acid. If you take that same sip first thing in the morning it will taste like heaven. You have to fool your taste buds, and they're not that easy to fool. Some products use Splenda or Stevia and they over-use them terribly - they want to make it taste *sweet*, which is not what you want when you're on low-carb, and they end up tasting fake and horrible. If you choose to use artificial sweeteners then try a few and keep in mind that less can be more.Strive to eat foods that are naturally low in carbs. Ignore 'protein bars' and other glycerin-heavy crap, as they don't work as advertised and rarely have a taste that is worth the carbs they have.If you're jonesing for pasta then treat yourself to a steak.In a restaurant, a grilled-chicken caesar (no croutons) is a very common option that you will find almost everywhere. It's a good 'plan-b'.I think that's it for now.If you have any questions I would be delighted to try to help.Mike

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2021, 10:59:49 pm
content: Welcome aboard, Mike.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2021, 09:53:33 pm
content: Quote from: MultiMike on September 06, 2021, 02:38:20 pmYou've demonstrated why low carb diets are unhealthy quite well there. The same is true for low fat diets, which are also bad.It's unhealthy because it's too restrictive. Cutting out a large range of foods is not healthy. The fact you can't keep it up and fall off the wagon, so to speak is a sign the diet is not healthy and is unsustainable in the long run, not personal failure. There are physiological changes caused by following such a diet, which lead phycological changes and carb cravings. Again, see the Minnesota Starvation Study.The fact you need to take a multivitamin, is a sign it's unhealthy. A healthy diet doesn't require supplements.I'm glad you don't suffer from constipation, but do you know that it's not necessary caused by too little fibre and fluid intake? Eating too few calories can cause it, as the digestive system slows to a crawl. If you tried an extreme high fibre, low calorie diet for a long period of time, it would likely result in constipation.The fact that foods which you find normally taste bad, such as artificial sweeteners taste good, is a sign the diet isn't healthy, because it throws your sense of taste out of whack.Drinking water, just to fill your stomach and suppress hunger pangs is a very bad habit to get into. It can lead to excessive fluid intake, which can be very dangerous, night time urination and confusion between thirst and hunger signals. Don't do it. Generally one should drink when they're thirsty and eat when they're hungry. People generally drink enough fluid, based on thirst signals. The exception is when they're hot, or engaging in strenuous exercise. If in doubt, urine colour is the best indicator of excessive, inadequate, or sufficient fluid intake.Bananas are a relatively poor source of potassium. Coconut water is probably the best natural source of potassium and is lower in sugar, than fruit juice, but don't overdo it.Do you know that you weight fluctuating up and down is worse for your health than being a bit obese and having a stable weight? Muscle is lost when you lose weight and is replaced by fat, when you gain it back. It also makes you more prone to other health problems such as diabetes, than being a little fat.It's definitely good to get into healthy habits such as exercising, and not snacking in front of the TV, or at the computer, but not restricting your diet too much is a healthy habit to get into. The problem is, after a prolong period of restriction, it can be very difficult to eat a normal healthy diet, because binge eating becomes increasingly likely after depriving your body of essential nutrients, for such a long time. It's often then followed by restriction, whether this is conscious or not, as it's a habit you've gotten into.

author: MultiMike
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2021, 10:38:34 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 11, 2021, 09:53:33 pmI don't think that's fair to say. You are suggesting that the restrictiveness of a low-carb diet makes it unhealthy because you can't stick with it. A low-calorie diet is just as restrictive. You're just counting different units. All reducing diets are restriction diets - by definition. I could be on a 200g low-carb diet and be able to eat anything I want, but that's not how *I* do it. You can't take my methodology as an example to damn an entire concept. If low-carb is unhealthy because most people can't stick to it then I guess exercise is unhealthy, too, because... most people don't stick to that, either.QuoteI don't actually take multivitamins, I just think they're helpful for people who don't know for sure how their body is going to react to ketosis.I'm glad you don't suffer from constipation, but do you know that it's not necessary caused by too little fibre and fluid intake? Eating too few calories can cause it, as the digestive system slows to a crawl. If you tried an extreme high fibre, low calorie diet for a long period of time, it would likely result in constipation.QuoteI didn't say that artificial sweeteners 'normally taste bad'. I said that if you try to mix artificial sweeteners with *non* artificial sweeteners the mix is terrible.QuoteI didn't lose 100 pounds by being 'a little fat.'Since going back on low-carb I'm down 50 pounds which puts me at 300lbs. Being on low-carb sorts out many issues that I 'should' have. No sign of diabetes, good cholesterol levels, good blood pressure.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2021, 10:48:11 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 11, 2021, 09:53:33 pmFun fact: Bananas 330mg potassium per 100g, Potato crisps 1328mg potassium per 100g. (Source McCance and Widdowson, current edition).

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2021, 07:48:29 am
content: Thank fuck for that

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 12:55:24 pm
content: Quote from: MultiMike on September 11, 2021, 10:38:34 pmYes, being unable to stick to a diet is a sign it isn't healthy, because it isn't fulfilling you physical and psychological needs. A healthy diet won't give you cravings.QuoteLow carb, low fat and calorie counting are all unhealthy diets, just in different ways.It's good to be aware of the energy densities of different foods, but calorie counting is unsustainable in the long run. It's almost impossible to know exactly how much energy your body needs and food labels are often inaccurate. A big problem is your body's basal metabolic rate, adjusts itself to account for energy intake. If you cut your calories, then your metabolism slows to compensate for it. Your stomach also produces more ghrelin, an appetite stimulating hormone, causing cravings.QuoteI wouldn't agree. They introduced a sugar tax on drinks awhile ago in the UK. To get round this, some drinks companies cut the amount of sugar in their products and added artifical sweetners to make up for it. The result is most non-diet fizzy drinks in the UK are sweetened with a mix of sugar and artificial sweetners. I've notcied a slight difference in the flavour of some drinks, but wouldn't say they taste bad. I suppose it's a matter of opinion.QuoteYou'll probably find it harder to lose the weight this time, will crack sooner and risk gaining more weight.There are more healthy ways to manage your weight, than severely restricting what you eat.Quote from: Cerebus on September 11, 2021, 10:48:11 pmI didn't know that, but I'm not surprised given crisps are just potato, a good source of potassium, with the water removed.However, when the typical serving size is taken into account, crisps (35g) and bananas (130g) have similar amounts of potassium. Coconut water contains 250mg, per 100g, which is 625mg in a 250ml glass.Other nutrients such as sugars, fat and sodium levels often need to be taken into account. Crisps have the highest: sodium content, number of calories and fat per serving, followed by bananas, which are relatively high in sugar, with coconut water containing the least calories. This isn't to say, one should always opt for coconut water. Sometimes it makes sense to have a high calorie, food with a high sodium content, after a long period of intense exercise for example.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 01:40:41 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 13, 2021, 12:55:24 pmPronounced "Grrrrrrrr-elin" because of the noise your stomach makes.QuoteThey all taste disgusting to me. A side effect of the change is that they've made things perceptually sweeter - about the only fizzy drink I used to consume, a series of rather more adult juice + a little sugar + mineral water drinks from Pellegrino is now both way too sweet for my taste and has the disgusting sickly taste of sweetener.There is concern in some quarters that artificially sweetened drinks may be innately bad for you. The whole satiety thing is a complicated interplay of neural signalling and hormones that is still notfullyunderstood. Artificial sweeteners trigger release of some gut hormones just as carbohydrates do, but without providing the energy that would accompany those carbohydrates. That cannot be good for the balance of the whole system.QuoteYou're taking the whole crisps thing too seriously, it was merely an amusing diversion.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 02:41:56 pm
content: QuoteI think that's to simplistic. Diets don't last because they need a change in lifestyle which isn't on the cards - if it was there wouldn't be a need for a 'diet' because you'd already be doing it. That goes for 'healthy' as well as any other diet.Further, a psychological need doesn't depend on how healthy the food is. Many people get fat after giving up smoking (is that a diet?) to replace the act of putting something in their gob.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 04:34:45 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 13, 2021, 01:40:41 pmThen use a freaking smilie.Quote from: dunkemhigh on September 13, 2021, 02:41:56 pmBut if the change/lifestyle in diet isn't sustainable, then it isn't healthy, in the long term. Mental health is just as important as physical health. If a patient can maintain only a healthy weight and good blood sugar/cholesterol figures, by counting every single calorie, but they feel continiously hungry, can't go out for meals with their freinds and often binge eat, then it's clearly not doing their mental health any good. It's also highly likely they'll eventaully end up gaining more weight, than they lost. There needs to be a balance.It simply isn't true that most obese people can lose weight and keep it off forever, by changing their diet alone. This has been known for a long time. There are real physical processes going on the body, which promote weight regain. It simply isn't a matter of lack of willpower, comfort eating, or giving up.One thing which is known to result in long term weight loss is gastric bypass surgery. It works by reducing ghrelin levels, rather than simply limiting stomach capacity.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12630608/QuoteThat simply isn't the case. People gain weight after quitting smoking, because nicotine is an appetite supressent. Body weight is only one indicator of health. It's certainly more healthy to quit smoking and gain a bit of weight, than to carry on and be slightly leaner.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 04:59:25 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 13, 2021, 04:34:45 pmI rely on the intelligence of my readers to discern between an amusing diversion, a trivial quip, a bon-mot, full on satire and a serious point.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 05:47:08 pm
content: QuoteYes. But that applies to any diet1, healthy or not. Some people eat unhealthily and can't sustain a healthy diet because of the necessary change in lifestyle.QuoteWell, quite. But it also isn't true that just eating 'healthily' is either sustainable or will lead to weight loss (and maintain that), which is what you seem to be promoting. People are different and achieve the desired result in different ways, and what works for one person might be a disaster for another.QuoteThere are downsides to gastric bypass and people are known to try and cheat it. It's not a magic bullet.QuoteI am here to tell you it certainly is the case with at least me. I used to often have a fag break as an aid to pondering a problem (kind of like going for a walk or similar - it is the repetitive, semi-autonomous distraction that lets one think), and after giving up I found it difficult to zone out in that way. And my mouth just wanted something in it to suck, so I ate despite not being (and knowing I wasn't) hungry. It was never about foodper se- I wouldn't snack or much biscuits, but I would go through a large bag of raisins in short order as a smoking substitute (and by substitute I mean in the sense of going through the motions or putting something in my mouth and sucking on it while thinking).Eating a healthy diet does nothing for me in the sense of maintaining a normal weight. I just don't feel full and can happily eat until I burst, and of course the nicer the stuff is the more I want to eat it. The only thing that works with me is to go cold turkey, which isn't possible with food. Thus some form of starvation diet is what took a third of my weight off and has kept it off for the last 7-8 years.My GP (who, I stress, has given me no advice whatsoever about diet - this just came out when he was chatting to my SO) is a jolly healthy-looking chap and apparently often goes several days without eating. Seems to work for him. Probably won't work for many, but it illustrates that there is no simple solution and even a generalisation is probably covered in caveats.--- I think we need to differentiate between a diet, meaning eating in a special way to achieve an end (e.g. lose weight), and diet, meaning the kinds of food we eat normally.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2021, 09:19:58 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on September 13, 2021, 04:59:25 pmPeople with adequate intelligence know that sarcasm doesn't transmit through text and use smilies accordinglyQuote from: dunkemhigh on September 13, 2021, 05:47:08 pmExercise is also key and it needs to be strenuous to work.What I find odd is how many people keep doing diets and always gain the weight back. It's weird how they expect to get a different result the next time, when it failed several times before. Unfortunately it has a hugely negative impact on their self-esteem, but it wasn't their fault, because their body's biology was fighting them all the way.QuoteYou're right, weight loss surgery isn't a magic bullet. There also are different types and the one I'm talking of, the gastric bypass, actually reduces appetite, so there isn't the same urge to cheat, so to speak.QuoteWhy didn't you just try a lolly pop? They don't contain that many calories and there are sugar free ones.I suspect discontinuing nicotine, probably had a greater impact on your appetite, than you realise. Quite often one is unaware of why they're eating more or less, because hunger is something we normally respond to subconsciously.QuoteIf you're regularly engaging in strenuous exercise, you'll probably find you don't gain as much weight, as you expect, if you reverted to a more intuitive eating pattern. Otherwise, you're the 1 in 100 people who this can sort of work for. It can't be good for your mental health though.EDIT:Reading nicotine, I Googled about its appetite suppressing properties and found this study which suggests it's enhanced by caffeine. Of course I don't endorse taking up nicotine gum and black coffee, or diet energy drinks for weight loss.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15955118/

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2021, 03:12:44 pm
content: Just wanted to add an update. I'm still on the ketogenic diet and have still been losing weight but the weight loss has slowed down. Now I am around 216 and still doing okay. last week I lost around 2lbs.If I can make it down to 200 I'll be able to fit into a lot of clothes that have been saved in the hope I could shed this weight off for more than 20 yrs. We are not eating any starches or grains at all. Lots of protein. Eggs, meats, and so on. Vegetables.Its a drastic change from what I was eating before.

author: MultiMike
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2021, 04:56:31 pm
content: Quote from: Miyuki on September 02, 2021, 07:28:05 amTrue, but the amount required is ridiculously easy to get even from lettuce. There is no physical health requirement for salting food - it's about flavour, enjoyment and thereby in a roundabout way mental health.Mike

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2021, 05:42:40 pm
content: So if you own cows you can give them lettuce instead of salt?(Cows have to be given extraneous salt)

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2021, 07:02:38 pm
content: Quote from: MultiMike on September 19, 2021, 04:56:31 pmThat's nonsense. Lettuce is such a poor source of sodium, so one would have to eat a lot of it in order to fulfil their minimum daily requirements, which are specific to the individual.QuoteThat depends. When I went cycling a lot on holiday, I got cramps and migraines, which were fixed by consciously increasing my sodium intake.It's true that the risks of excessive consumption of sodium are greatly exaggerated. If someone eats too much salt, it's excreted in the urine and little harm is done. The problem is, salt is generally added to processed foods, which are also high in fat and often sugar. Diet is notoriously hard to study because it's impossible to have a double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.One thing which is important to note is that figures such as BMI are only rules of thumb. It's body composition and more importantly, where fat is, which is a better indicator of health risk. Someone my have a BMI of under 25, yet have a little too much fat around the middle, whilst someone else might have a BMI of over 30 and not have much abdominal fat.The point I've being trying to make is we need to consider health wholistically. Quite often it seems as though we focus on something like weight alone and neglecting other aspects of health.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2021, 07:16:57 pm
content: Quote from: MultiMike on September 19, 2021, 04:56:31 pmThe UK sets the lower reference nutrient intake (LRNI) for sodium at 25 mmol/day (0.575 g/day). That is the minimum acceptable level (on a population level), lower would within a few days cause hyponatraemia which is a serious medical emergency. McCance and Widdowson has the sodium content of raw lettuce (average of 22 samples, autumn and winter, UK grown and imported, including shredded, Iceberg, Romaine and Little Gem) at 2mg/100g. So an LRNI's worth of lettuce would be a mere 28.75 kg/day.Staples you might think make a contribution to your sodium requirements are lower in sodium than you might think - potatoes around 2mg/100g, rice 4mg/100g, pasta 16mg/100g, bulgar wheat 5mg/100gm, wholemeal wheat 2mg/100gm, onions 3mg/100g, carrots 27mg/100g, peas 1mg/100g. See where we're going here in the grains/vegetables world? It's only when you start looking at meat, fish and animal products that the levels begin to look like you might meet your LRNI on a no-salt-added diet: Milk 42mg/100gm, beef mince 80mg/100g, chicken breast 55mg/100g, eggs 155mg/100gm, cod 91mg/100gm.It looks very much as if a vegan would need to supplement their salt intake beyond the intrinsic salt content of their diet's raw ingredients, vegetarians probably also depending on their dairy intake.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2021, 11:07:20 pm
content: The reason I brought the salt up is that in the past I spent a lot of time in the US Southwest which has a lot of desert and high altitude parkland and hiking, where it seems I need more sodium. I actually took salt pills. They actually have signs on some trails reminding people to take them. (The famously step hike up to the falls in Yosemite is one I remember)