Dr. Greger explains the cause of insulin resistance, p 17 and explains how to reverse heart failure pg 17

Matt Gruber said:
"The clear skin diet". I never had acne, but those girls went from ugly to beautiful, and were, before, on the keto diet and got bad acne, and were eating peanut butter on toast for breakfast.

My wife has PCOS and high fat cleared up both her PCOS and major acne. I wonder what kind of condition these girls had to have the opposite result?

ps - 'peanut butter on toast' doesn't sound like keto at all. Even with fake bread, you're lookin' at 5-10 carbs. On real bread, you're looking at more like 30+, which would be over your entire allotment for the day.
 
Cephalotus said:
I was addicted to soft drinks. Thankfully the addiction is not as hard wired to your brain as other drug addictions, so getting rid of it seems to be much easier.

You must not have an addictive personality then. Sugar has been shown to be one of the most addictive substances out there. For people with eating disorders, it is as deadly as many drugs; it just kills them slower and less suddenly and more expensively.

For me, it was easy to quit because the difference between extremely high blood sugar and regular blood sugar was so extreme for me that i could never ever go back. I felt like a new man.

Over time i have lost my taste for sugar. It tastes acidic to me now. I am so sensitive to sugar that broccoli tastes sweet sometimes.

- For many low carb diets people eat huge amounuts of meat, red meat and processed meat and those have negative health effects incl significant increased risc of cancer
- many people on low carb eat to many proteins which causes faster cell aging in General and hase negative effects for example on your kidneys

Ah yeah, you don't *have* to eat red meat on low carb. And yes, processed meat is bad because of nitrates but again, you can avoid it. But there are people that eat nothing BUT red meat who have been doing so for decades with no noticeable negative health effects.

What studies confirm that low carb ages you? I have seen studies showing preservation of telomere length due to low carb. If you read a study showing that low carb ages you, i bet it involved mice. Mice have different metabolisms than humans and always fall apart on a high fat diet. All studies that show low carb 'causes problem' i've read involved mice, and the mice had extremely negative health effects we don't see in humans on the diet.

I don't read German, so i'm not going to translate that article because the translation could mess it up. But I do read scientific papers and have a good understanding of human and animal metabolism. So throw me some papers.

There are very healthy low carb diets out there, but those are low carb, low meat diets, wheer you get most of your fats and proteins from some fish, nuts, legumes and vegetables.

That's not a low carb diet though ( legumes are full of carbohydrate and fish has very little fat ) and if you get all your fats from omega 6 oils because you're scared of saturated fat, you can end up with some serious inflammatory issues. ( vegans can have this problem ).

You say that you are a special case because of your Insuline reistance and this could be perfectly true from what I read so low carb is waht works for you. But there is some risc, that low carb + lots of meat has negative side effects as shown above.

I don't know of any negative side effects, having known people who have been on the diet for decades, and having read research papers on it for about 2 years straight. When i found negative effects, it was either a high carb, high fat diet labeled as a low carb diet, or it was mice studies, OR they had found some subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia, which would be the opposite of type 2 diabetes ( can't metabolize fat or cholesterol properly )

If i eat carbs, my risk is extreme heart health issues, type 2 diabetes, low testosterone, and mental illness. If you told me i'd die 10 years younger from low carb, and you were right, i'd still live longer, and i'd have all my limbs once they plop me into the casket :lol:.

The French or Italiens seem to be wiser than the Germans when it comes to food.

Coincidentally the French are not afraid of saturated fat whatsoever... :mrgreen:
Not sure about italians but their food is pretty greasy :)

Many US Americans in my (probaly biased from media) view are in deep shit when it comes to food. Your food industry is much more "advanced", you generally do not like any regulations and you feed even your children that shit at school canteens (if that is true?).

Imagine what all that sugar and highly processed fast food and all that additional flavors does to the eating habit of children?

What you see as a nightmare that you can't imagine is unfortunately the reality in the USA. Mexico also eats worse than us and has more obesity than we do, if you can believe that..

Eating vegetarianand heating healthy is a bit more complicated, eating vegan and healthy is very complicated. My girldfried is vegetarian and has to fight much more for losing weight and she is not so happy with that. But in ym opinion her diet is not ideal including to much sugar.

You just described me and my girlfriend before we started keto.

So my plan to "cheat" on the public Pension system is to retire when possible and than live long and healthy into my 90s :)

Smart. Look into intermittent fasting and the effects of caloric restriction on lifespan. There are well-documented positive effects from this. That is one thing that everyone should be doing. But then we can end up like Japan, where everyone is old. So keep the secret between you and your friends ;)

I agree. It is a "stupid" illness. Like lung cancer from air pollution or metabolic syndrom because you just don't move.

You know, you can get metabolic syndrome even if you move. I was taking daily bicycle rides and walks when it hit me. I was religiously following a low fat, low cholesterol, low salt vegetarian diet ( all the most common recommendations ). I feel like our "food pyramid" was designed to make us fat. A similar diet is fed to livestock here to make them very fat before they are slaughtered - almost 100% carbs.
 
neptronix said:
Matt Gruber said:
"The clear skin diet". I never had acne, but those girls went from ugly to beautiful, and were, before, on the keto diet and got bad acne, and were eating peanut butter on toast for breakfast.

My wife has PCOS and high fat cleared up both her PCOS and major acne. I wonder what kind of condition these girls had to have the opposite result?

ps - 'peanut butter on toast' doesn't sound like keto at all. Even with fake bread, you're lookin' at 5-10 carbs. On real bread, you're looking at more like 30+, which would be over your entire allotment for the day.
I don't see any conflict; your wife found what works for her. People are different.
I may have mis-quoted the girls, they may have tried or thought they tried a keto diet, maybe they switched. who knows?
I thought "keto" meant your body burns fat, where it normally burns glucose. No? When a fat person loses weight is the fat lost due to ketosis?
:thumb: Keep in mind my topic is NOT about weight loss! It is about healthy eating to keep from getting all the popular diseases, like heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.
 
Matt Gruber said:
I may have mis-quoted the girls, they may have tried or thought they tried a keto diet, maybe they switched. who knows?

I read a short summary of the book, and it appears it advocates for a low nutrition, nearly zero fat vegan diet.
The recommendations look a lot like the original vegan diet invented by buddhist monks to tamp their sexual desires.
( this monk diet also discludes things known to increase male sexual hormones, IE onions, garlic, etc because they "cause strong emotions" )

I see how this could work. The diet includes little to no substances which you can synthesize sex hormones from. But this is a danger for young people still undergoing sexual development. It's kind of like applying a hammer to the problem.

High carb, high fat, low protein is kind of our default American diet and i'd guess that's how they ate. Of course, this is a recipe for acne because the body cannot tune itself to efficiently operate on either macronutrient. Spare fats and glucose will circulate.

Matt Gruber said:
I thought "keto" meant your body burns fat, where it normally burns glucose. No? When a fat person loses weight is the fat lost due to ketosis?

Keto means that you tune your metabolism to burn fat by eating less than 20g/carbohydrates a day. It means entering a state of perpetual ketogenesis, where your liver now synthesizes ketones from fat and your body uses them in lieu of glucose derived from carbohydrates. This, in an of itself does not cause anyone to lose weight, but it has tons of notable effects.

The trick that keto has up it's sleeve is that once you are 'fat adapted', the transition from metabolizing dietary fat to metabolizing your own body fat is seamless. You can run a caloric deficit and not notice it for many hours ( eventually the liver cannot keep up with the energy demands of your brain and other organs, so starving yourself perpetually is hard ). This is how otherwise hopeless people have success losing weight on it.

Now, an average person who doesn't have a deranged metabolism like mine will intermittently enter a state of mild ketosis while sleeping, or even during the day. The younger you are, the easier this is. This is where weight loss can happen.

The problem with a deranged metabolism is that the response to insulin is delayed or exaggerated due to insulin resistance. The body becomes tuned to store spare glucose as fat and fat metabolism is extremely poor, so this person runs on carbohydrates whether they eat fat or not. The body has lost it's easy access to stored body fat as well. One thing you will notice with overweight people is that they tend to eat small portions of carbohydrates constantly. They feel horrible if they don't.
They also have a tendency to eat a lot of carbohydrates before sleeping so that their body has energy throughout the night, as their metabolism makes entering ketosis almost impossible.

Matt Gruber said:
:thumb: Keep in mind my topic is NOT about weight loss! It is about healthy eating to keep from getting all the popular diseases, like heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

Well, being overweight happens to be the number one contributor to heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. If you have these problems as a skinny person, then you've got something serious going on. The only way to combat that with diet is to experiment and test. An elimination diet is a good place to start ( but not always a good place to perpetually maintain ).

I see you are doing that to some degree, but i'm not seeing the testing part happening, so you might not come to a conclusion.
 
Nep
Thanks for your reply.
I guess i was not awake yet at 6:46am when i wrote that. :oops:
Actually i'm trying to avoid the 100+ diseases caused by a faulty auto-immune system. My hyper-thyroid is caused by my crazy auto-immune response, AND, people with one auto-immune disease often get more. AND i had another, geographic tongue, that cleared up by itself years ago. So i'm motivated to avoid, if possible the much more serious, some deadly, auto immune diseases. From what i understand, the same "healthy diet" usually works with most diseases; once the bad food is avoided, most sickness is avoided.
Dairy is the #1 cause of auto-immune disease as far as i can tell. As for blood tests, at this point i'm still learning what tests can help. C-peptide is one, to make sure my pancreas function has not been impaired by my immune system. But i proved to my satisfaction that my pancreas does in fact produce some insulin, as i can gain weight if i eat more high fat food, if i couldn't gain weight, that could be type 1 diabetes which is an auto immune disease, and i don't want to stick in needles. So far so good.
PS :lol: Funny about those Monks, they had the idea backwards :lol: Low fat vegan diet eliminates the need for a blue pill, from what i've read.......... I've never needed one. :twisted: But, everybody is different, and if you had sexual problems on a particular diet, i can see why you would avoid it, and want to warn everybody.
I did not study the girls clear skin diet; kudos to you for looking at it. McDougall does list elimination of acne on his diet. That is the one to study, and this one that reverses heart disease: http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/
But, you say you were on a low fat vegan diet, and it did not work for you. So why post here? You should start a keto success topic, or whatever has helped you. I don't know much about diets; they seem to all be about losing weight. I tried high fat for a while, that is said to make you feel full, so you stop eating. But, my family just pushes away from the table, and finds something else to do. I was initially intrigued when it was said to cure illness; An easy way to fix my thyroid. Did not do that, so i dropped it.
I do want to avoid future illness, if possible. Totally different topic. Not even sure if this is possible, but the food is delicious, and it is a great hobby for a retired guy.
 
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411526/ketogenic-diet-gains-popularity-scientists-research-what-we-do-and-dont-know

I'm interested in the studies but except for those mentioned above, they seem sparse. Lots and lots of anecdotes in this thread, but where's the beef?
 
tomjasz said:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411526/ketogenic-diet-gains-popularity-scientists-research-what-we-do-and-dont-know

I'm interested in the studies but except for those mentioned above, they seem sparse. Lots and lots of anecdotes in this thread, but where's the beef?

I wonder why they said there isn't much research.. there's a ton. But to some people, it's a new field of research, i guess.
The idea of a ketogenic diet has been around since the 1800's and only recently became popular starting in the 1970's when Atkins marketed it as 'his' diet.

One thing that surprised me about that article is that they say the mouse studies had positive effects. Most mouse studies don't.
 
Gruber, i'll take my keto talk elsewhere per your request.

But let me leave you a note about hyperthyroid.
I don't know much about it at all. I just know about hypothyroid.
A lot of people have success with keto and hypothyroid, but i don't know why ( might have to due with increased hormone synthesis thanks to saturated fat )

For hyperthyroid, i would consider looking into what people with hypothyroid do, and if there is something that's the opposite, try that.

Usually the cure for hyperthyroid/grave's disease is to remove part of the thyroid, but that's a bad idea.
Many plants contain anti-nutrients that slow the production of thyroid hormones. Google 'anti nutrients thyroid' and give that a look.
That might not be the best route though since the cause is auto immune. But this is closer to attacking the problem.

You need to test TSH to benchmark your dietary experiments, otherwise you'll noodle around forever.

Admittedly i did this for a while when i was in my vegan/vegetarian phase. Believed a lot of stuff without proof ( because it sounded right to me / fit my bias ). Only once i started discarding claims and asking for scientific papers ( or at least proof via blood tests ) did my views and then health results change for the positive.

Best wishes. I'll duck out of your thread now.
 
neptronix said:
tomjasz said:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411526/ketogenic-diet-gains-popularity-scientists-research-what-we-do-and-dont-know

I'm interested in the studies but except for those mentioned above, they seem sparse. Lots and lots of anecdotes in this thread, but where's the beef?

I wonder why they said there isn't much research.. there's a ton. But to some people, it's a new field of research, i guess.
The idea of a ketogenic diet has been around since the 1800's and only recently became popular starting in the 1970's when Atkins marketed it as 'his' diet.

One thing that surprised me about that article is that they say the mouse studies had positive effects. Most mouse studies don't.

Lot's of studies but studies and their conclusions are subject to PEER review. Many have glaring flaws and the scientific community seems to say that the jury is out on long term effects. Sorry but I smell another fad diet lacking longterm HUMAN studies. FWIW the McDougal diet(Eselstein et al) reduced my blood cholesterol levels to the ideal without medication. We were planning on how we were going to handle dialysis as I was weeks away from losing full function. A complete commitment, without straying, to the diet reversed a process the nephrologist claimed was impossible. A biopsy confirmed disease present and yet a plant based diet dropped all values into the normal range. I'm convinced we've evolved to be plant eaters. Another wonder diet in my experience was BARFing my dogs. Amazing to watch the transformation in them.
 
tomjasz said:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/08/411526/ketogenic-diet-gains-popularity-scientists-research-what-we-do-and-dont-know

I'm interested in the studies but except for those mentioned above, they seem sparse. Lots and lots of anecdotes in this thread, but where's the beef?

I'm suspicious of any radical diet when applied to a person in relatively normal health. That said, I see no reason that a person should be concerned with going into and out of ketosis. Ketosis is a normal state so it makes sense to me that going into that state from time to time is unlikely to be harmful and likely to have some benefit. It goes, one again, to my general rule about all things in moderation.

The most radical thing I do with my diet is that I've shifted to time restricted eating on weekdays and some weekend days. It hasn't been much of a shift since I've typically skipped breakfast for most of my life. So now, instead of eating around noon, I wait until after 2P or 3P. I may start fasting for a couple to three days every 3 - 4 months as well.
 
Not a fad. The Charlie Foundation and John Hopkins university have produced and highlighted some high quality research on keto done in a clinical setting, and the diet has been known about and used as a medical treatment for over 200 years. If you want some high quality research, look their way first.

As far as the bit about us being herbivores, i always go back to looking at physiology for clues.

Some of us have the enzymes to convert plant versions of nutrients into ones our bodies can use, others do not. As of this year, there are actually genetic tests that can tell you the truth. People actually have a pretty wild variation in this.

And that is no surprise, because we have traits of both carnivores and herbivores. And our ancestors are all over the map too.

But we are genetically closest to chimpanzees ( omnivore, but loves meat ), bonobos ( omnivore, also loves meat ), and gorillas ( omnivore that prefers to eat plants ).

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150728-chimps-nearly-wiped-out-monkeys
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14926-loving-bonobos-have-a-carnivorous-dark-side/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/

One interesting thing about humans is the variation in their canine teeth. Some people nearly don't have them. Other people have huge ones ( often seen in Asians ). Mine are very pronounced and i was the only person in my family that experimented with vegetarianism and veganism.

But perhaps tooth configuration isn't the best indicator because look at the mouth of a gorilla. It's dietary preferences don't seem to match those gnarly fangs.
But their teeth are designed to handle any kind of food... just like ours.
( you'll notice that pure herbivores tend to lack canines and sometimes even have an entire mouth full of molars )

I'd say we're omnivores but have genetic variation just like our primate ancestors do. One diet does not fit all.
 
I'm not arguing much about the low fat vs. low carb discussion. This sounds more like an religious thing to me. Obviously Homo sapiens can thrive on both and any mix between both.

If you want a list on studys on keto diet look at those (mostly in English):

https://www.inutro.com/ketogene-diaet#quellenangaben

adverse effects are mostly found by studies quoted at the bottom of the list.

I believe that for a healthy "normal" person neither low carb nor low fat is needed to stay healthy. Just eat more of the good carbs and fat and avoid most of the bad carbs and fat. If you are "allowed" to eat various amounts of fat and carbs your options what you can have on your plates increase very significantly.
If I count I count kcal and protein and my problem is, that my protein consumption is a bit on the lower spectrum, because I eat lots of fruits whch are mostly carbs / sugar and try to eat less meat and dairy products. So I have to balance that with fish, nuts, legumes, etc... Maybe I should try more soy products.

The amount of fat vs. carbs I simpley do not care.

For raesons of sustainability eating less meat is better than eating large amounts of meat and for health reasons to limit the consumption of red meat seems to be better.

If you are a (red) meat addict and feel well with it and if you don't have any ethical problems eating it this is fine for me. I assume(!) that most adverse effects on a red meat diet are rather long term problems than short term effects.

The main problem with meat diets is, that they simple are not scaleable to large populations, because they would destroy our ecosystems. Already 70% of the worlds demands on agricultural area is used to feed lifestock and this is with the average world person eating "only" a bit more than 100g of meat per day.

Imagine how the world would look like when 10 billion people start to eat 500g meat per day.
 
I don't have seizures and that is what John Hopkins studied. Again, where are the peer reviewed studies linking this diet to the general public and in the long term?
Look, I'm not asking to be pissy or argue. I just always distrust claims of studies and results that are still inconclusive. Reading the Blue Zone studies does nothing to support longevity and keto diets.

That said, I practiced some techniques in horticulture that are largely anecdotal. Sometimes, I believe, the anecdotes come before the proof. I didn't have time to wait for science to conclude what I saw on a daily basis, and in vitro. But 200 years is the claim, yet long-term studies and a look at life expectancy don't support Keto. At the same timea believe you are successful and your passion is laudable. But still... doubting Thomas.
All the best! A good discussion!
 
neptronix said:
<snip>
I'd say we're omnivores but have genetic variation just like our primate ancestors do. One diet does not fit all.

I've come to pretty much the same conclusion.
 
tomjasz said:
Look, I'm not asking to be pissy or argue. I just always distrust claims of studies and results that are still inconclusive. Reading the Blue Zone studies does nothing to support longevity and keto diets.

The problem is that when dealing with humans we have a problem with the kinds of things we can ethically do to test our theories. So we are often limited to epidemiological studies. And it is hard to do these well over the long term - especially when trying to study very specific things.

tomjasz said:
That said, I practiced some techniques in horticulture that are largely anecdotal. Sometimes, I believe, the anecdotes come before the proof. I didn't have time to wait for science to conclude what I saw on a daily basis, and in vitro. But 200 years is the claim, yet long-term studies and a look at life expectancy don't support Keto. At the same timea believe you are successful and your passion is laudable. But still... doubting Thomas.
All the best! A good discussion!

Well yeah. The anecdotes typically precede any solid scientific evidence. We are going to be dead before a LOT of stuff is know conclusively or with high certainty. So the best we can do is to make reasonable inferences from the limited information we have. If I were to adopt a ketogenic diet, I would only do it intermittently. It seems too radical to be a good long term approach to me.
 
I switched to low carb (50-100g of high quality) to boost my athletic endurance and possibly reduce some belly fat.
Big increase in energy, lower inflammation, healing faster from injury and I have indeed lost weight.
I used to eat all day now it's roughly 12-8 other than a coffee with a bit of heavy cream first thing. Can workout hard on a fast (which I do), windsurf for 4-5 hours no problem and as said I've dropped from 210# to 175# (6', 35yo male). Arguably I've never been healthier by any means of measurement.

I'd say as a measurement of how your eating habits are working would be to fast 14 hours then try for maximum athletic performance. If you bonk then you aren't metabolically flexible and you might want to rethink your eating.
 
Grantmac said:
I'd say as a measurement of how your eating habits are working would be to fast 14 hours then try for maximum athletic performance. If you bonk then you aren't metabolically flexible and you might want to rethink your eating.

I've done that, and man have i had some weak workouts fasting that long; but not bonked.
I still like intermittent fasting though. What i'll do is eat ~200 calories before the gym and let my body supply the energy near the tail end of the workout.

If you think about it, our bodies should naturally be able to do that because that's a typical situation anything in the wild might encounter. 8 hours after waking and no food. If you can't handle that, you're dead in the wild.
 
neptronix said:
Grantmac said:
I'd say as a measurement of how your eating habits are working would be to fast 14 hours then try for maximum athletic performance. If you bonk then you aren't metabolically flexible and you might want to rethink your eating.

I've done that, and man have i had some weak workouts fasting that long; but not bonked.
I still like intermittent fasting though. What i'll do is eat ~200 calories before the gym and let my body supply the energy near the tail end of the workout.

If you think about it, our bodies should naturally be able to do that because that's a typical situation anything in the wild might encounter. 8 hours after waking and no food. If you can't handle that, you're dead in the wild.

Also, we aren't evolved to do "workouts". In the wild, we'd work as hard as necessary to get food and probably not a lot more. We'd be used to not overdoing things when food is scarce and would probably tend to meter our exertions based on fairly well perceived (based on experience) needs.

Such evolutionary musings aside, your muscles should be able to store about two hours of glycogen stores available. A 14 hour fast shouldn't reduce them very much but does probably reduce them some. If yoy are routinely going for that long without eating, then your body is probably at least moderately well adapted to dipping into fat stores. And if that's what Grantmac meant by "metabolically flexible" then maybe I'd agree with that - or at least the general idea behind it.
 
neptronix said:
8 hours after waking and no food. If you can't handle that, you're dead in the wild.

Unless the adrenaline kicks in Then you poop your loincloth, pee into the wind and run faster then you ever have before. :shock:

:lol: :bolt:
 
Metabolically flexible meaning able to convert fat (dietary or stored) to glycogen. Which I was certainly incapable of doing in the past.
I'd "fuel" on a 3 hour drive to go windsurfing, then bonk 2-3 hours in if I didn't eat the whole time. Now I have no problem running a 10k or windsurfing a few hours after a fast. I average 14-16 hours of fasting a day, sometimes 20 if I'm busy.
The added energy has also let me drop my caffeine intake down by about 75%.

Although I'm at a stable weight I don't see myself ever going back to a typical diet since the other benefits have been so significant.
 
Even the best Dr's have a distorted view of the world. To them nearly everybody is sick, very sick. I cancelled my May 18 appt. as soon as i felt my thyroid was under control. They asked why, and i said i felt good enough not to go. Back in Dec 17, my resting pulse was 113, and it was 69-72 on my last visit, but the nurse thought it should be lower, and wanted to closely monitor my blood tests, and adjust the dose. I do that myself, it is called titration, and i don't need blood tests for that.
So what about these expert nutrition Dr's? Well, even the best say some curious things now and then. Dr. Esselysten said "Don't eat any nuts. Nobody can eat just 1" So each day for 3 days i ate 1 walnut. No problem. But, i guess his patients have gone wild eating nuts. Who knows? I give Dr E a 90% score which is excellent. He treats deathly ill heart disease patients, and for them he could rate 100. I don't have heart disease, my BP is 122/70, never had chest pains in my life. Everybody says odd things now and then, that does not make everything they say wrong. The challenge is knowing what advice applies to particular person.
I ate a can of sardines, was quite good, i plan to eat 2 cans a month. These vegan Dr's act like this will kill me for sure :lol: I went from 1000 animal product meals a year, down to about 50. And no free oil anymore. +more vegetables. I'm not a vegan, i'm just trying to improve my diet. So far, so good.
 
Congrats on your results so far.

Yes, i also have a big problem with doctors in general..
 
neptronix said:
Congrats on your results so far.

Yes, i also have a big problem with doctors in general..


What do you call the bottom of the graduating class?


That said, a Dr doing due diligence on diet has far more education, time re viewing peer reviewed stdies than you and I will parse in several decades. Careful you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Back
Top