Even now if I eat keto for breakfast and lunch and moderate carb for supper. Even when I have the occasional high-carb meal, I feel dramatically different than I did before keto/weight loss.
I don't know about the pancreas, but both abstaining form alcohol and keto are shown to dramatically reduce the amount of fat stored in the liver.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ketogenic+diet+bi...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ketogenic+diet+neuropro...
Here's the Amazon link for book about the program and you can also read the reviews of many people who have successfully changed their for the better as well: http://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabet...
a hamburger bun, and a plate of french fries is honestly like a thousand calories. one thousand! that's like a huge ribeye steak.
you don't even want to know how many calories are in a mission-style burrito tortilla. it's completely out of control. that kind of food is meant for hard labor, not internet finger tapping.
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 caloriesi'm sorry but all the numbers in the world will not make me give up a nice fatty spiced chicken shawarma, or a juicy sausage and kraut, or a nice ribeye steak with a glass of pinot noir. i'd rather be dead and in the ground.
on the other hand, i'm fine skipping the bread and eating just a couple of fries.
> An inability to perceive low concentrations of fatty acids in foods was associated with greater consumption of fatty foods, specifically butter, meat, dairy, and increasing BMI.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21757270
> Within a behavioral economic perspective, the reinforcement value of low-fat foods may increase following a low-fat dietary intervention, whereas the reinforcing properties of high-fat foods may decline. This is desirable as low-fat foods hold many advantages over high-fat foods in terms of weight maintenance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725716
> The preference results of this study demonstrate a steady, progressive decline in liking for salt in soup following dietary intervention and monitoring activities aimed at reducing sodium intake. Approximately 3 mo were required for preferences to stabilize at a significantly lower salt level, which was maintained at 1 yr. This may be of relevance in clinical settings where low-sodium diets are used for treatment or prevention of hypertension.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3728360
> Alterations in the fat content of the diet modulated taste sensitivity to C18:1 among lean subjects, which was increased following a 4-week period of fat restriction and attenuated following the high-fat diet. The failure of the high-fat diet to alter fatty acid taste thresholds among OW/OB subjects suggests that these individuals were 'adapted' to high-fat exposure, perhaps because of differences in habitual fat consumption. Taken together, these data suggest that excessive dietary fat attenuates nutrient sensing epithelia response in the oral cavity, which could be associated with changes in diet and weight status.
To a diabetic, all carbs are bad, not just the ones that rot your teeth.
> The vegetarian diet (~60% of energy from carbohydrates,15% protein and 25% fat) consisted of vegetables, grains,legumes, fruits and nuts. Animal products were limited to amaximum of one portion of low-fat yogurt a day.
> In conclusion, a vegetarian diet led to a greater improve-ment in quality of life and mood. Patients consuming a vegetarian diet felt less constrained than those consuming the conventional diet. Disinhibition decreased with a vegetarian diet. The decrease in feelings of hunger tended to be greater in the vegetarian group. All these results suggest that a vegetarian diet is sustainable in the long term and may exhibit desired improvements not only in physical, but also in mental health of patients with Type 2 diabetes.
You should eat proteins, vegetables (especially leafy green ones) and a moderate amount of fruit. Natural fats like animal fats are ok too, depending on other health factors.
I am not a doctor but a ketogenic diet helped me lose weight and feel great. 230lb back down to 165lbs, but I am healthiest it seems around 183lbs.
Cardio works well for this. Options aren't limited to running. Speed walking or slow walking at a 5-15% incline on a treadmill for some amount of time can achieve the necessary glycogen depletion.
Consuming coconut milk as a fat source with its high level of medium chain triglycerides also generates more ketones per fat ingested then other fat sources
Since glycogen storage requires lots of water, losing 1-5lbs in water weight after exercising is a good sign that the glycogen stores have been depleted enough for the body to start looking for other sources of energy. One should be able to hit the scale, go exercise and sweat a ton, then go back to the scale 30mins to an hour later and see the water depletion. For myself I will hit the treadmill walking at 15% incline @ 2-4mph for 45mins to an hour while profusely sweating from the 3min mark till I stop.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/...
> A plant-based diet beat out the conventional American Diabetes Association diet in a head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trial, without restricting portions, no calorie or carb counting. A review of all such studies found that individuals following plant-based diets experience improved reductions in blood sugars, body weight, and cardiovascular risk, compared with those following diets that included animal products.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-diets-for-diabet...
You can eat a ketogenic diet and eat nearly unrestricted amounts (except by satiety) amounts of things like cabbage, cauliflower, radishes (great cooked btw), brussel sprouts, spinach, green onions, broccoli, kohlrabi, lettuce, avocado, sprouts, green beans, rutabaga, leeks, yellow squash, zucchini, mushrooms, herbs.
Add that with some fish, meat, nuts and/or cheese and you have a very healthy diet.
Between the satiety of fat/protein and high-fiber foods above, its very easy to hit one's caloric goals and have a minimal blood glucose level.
However, you're incorrect to assume adding meats and dairy products - even so-called "lean" ones - which are laden with cholesterol, saturated and trans fats - is at all healthy. All credible evidence suggests quite the opposite. If you have any studies which contradict my assertion, I would love for us to examine them together.
I do want to point out naturally occurring transfat has very different properties than the artificial common forms. I have never seen a well designed study show a low-fat diet to be superior to a high-fat-moderate-protien-very-low-carb one (usually referred to as VHFLC). I'd be interested if you know of any.
It is no longer generally accepted that dietary cholesterol is dominate factor unless you have mutation such as some of the PCSK9 mutations. Your body syntheses much more cholesterol everyday than you actually eat. The latest US government dietary guidelines has drastically shifted its position on cholesterol, write-up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-...
We have since learned many things such as the importance of HDL/LDL ratio as being predictive over just LDL for example.
This is a very complex topic and I would recommend this series written by a MD: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-chol...
This is a 5 part series befitting the complexity of the issue at hand.
Regarding the 2015 DGAC - the report did no original research to exonerate cholesterol, but rather deferred to a 2014 report by the American Heart Association, which has a financial incentive to label cholesterol-laden foods as, "heart healthy". Of course the media has chosen to play them up to stir up controversy and give the illusion there is vast disagreement in nutrition science, but that's simply not the case.
What has happened "in the last 10 years" is intense pressure from food industry lobbying to dilute research, confuse the public and distract from messages warning of saturated fat and cholesterol. Please, check out these short videos to see what exactly I'm talking about:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/bold-indeed-beef-lowers-chol...
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-mi...
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-cholesterol-patentl...
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/debunking-egg-industry-myths...
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/who-says-eggs-arent-healthy-...
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-d...
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/08/18/dietary-cholesterol-aff...
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-food-using-the-tobacco-i...
(I apologize if this seems biased, coming from a single source, but if you check the videos, each has links to cited studies discussed - I simply favor the format the material is presented in)
The Eating Academy articles you've linked are by Peter Attia, a co-founder of NuSI. Please do watch the earlier review of their work I suggested - http://plantpositive.com/warning-signs-nusi-guys-1/
The healthful HCLF diets you're seeking out are known as plant-based (usually vegan, but not exclusively) diets, and are always lauded as health-promoting, albeit supposedly "unpalpable".
Low-fat meaning, low in or void of saturated- and trans-fatty acids, high (10-15% of caloric intake) in essential polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (in the right ratio, ideally 1:1, but more practically, 1:3 or 1:5). Yet, many media outlets and conflict of interest research have no shame in claiming a diet as high as 30, 40, even 50 percent fat (always from animal products) are "low". This is simply nonsense! Your body needs only a little bit of fat, for example to increase vitamin absorption at each meal, or convert it to EPA/DHA.
High-carb meaning, the majority of calories are derived from whole, unrefined, plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruit, legumes and whole grains, especially ones low on the glycemic index (e.g. brown rice, whole grain pasta, beans, dark green leafy veg, colorful fruit variation, etc.)
Heck, I challenge you to find me a study which says a high-carb, low-fat diet as I've described is not a great recipe for human nutrition. Unfortunately, so many people find such a diet unreasonable for practical, social and other, personal reasons. Also unfortunate is the fact there's little money to be made in promoting these simple and unprocessed foods, so the academic world is not determined to research them.
Anyway, if you're interested in reading more about these sort of diets, check out the work by Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, to name a few. I've fully embraced the dietary lifestyle recommended by them and others, and can only praise the mental clarity, increased energy and satiation experienced as a result. I really believe the "trick" is to cut out processed and animal product foods altogether (at least to the degree you can sustainably practice and at the pace you find to be reasonable) - they're just unnecessary! Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but I figure it's worth sharing with you.
Lets talk specifics, let me give an an example of what I might eat in a day on such a diet:
Breakfast: Scamble: 2 eggs with 1 clove of garlic, one or two green onion strands, 3 diced radishes, mushrooms and cabbage (majority by volume). Coffee with cream.
Lunch: Salad: Raw salmon, spinach, watercress, 1/4 an onion, sliced radishes, sliced almonds, avocado, sunflower seeds with a whole fat greek yogurt + olive oil dressing. Water.
Supper: Medium rare steak with mushrooms, grilled kohlrabi and steamed asparagus. Unsweetened Iced green tea.
As you can see this would be a day low in processed foods, high in greens with both a low glycemic index and glycemic load, weighing in at a reasonable 1800 kcal. It blows my mind that the video's you shared calls something like this dangerous?! Not only is it far better than the average American diet, unlike a high-carb diet this no chance of leading to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and eventually type II diabetes.
You've also packed a heavy dose of antioxidants, vitamins and minerals from the great veggies, healthy fats (avocado, sunflower seeds - note, not oil!). What's more, the salmon is high in EPA and DHA content, further reducing inflammation in the body and promoting the health of so many vital bodily functions. You've even correctly recognized a 1800 calorie daily allowance as being near optimal. It even appears you're meeting the World Health Organization's recommendation to get at least 55% of calories from carbohydrates and probably getting enough fiber (which only 3% of Americans do!)
Now, the bad news - by breakfast time, you've already exceeded the daily recommended intake for cholesterol (300 mg; each egg contains approximately 250 mg). The meats (even if local, wild-caught, or raised "naturally") most certainly contain questionable levels of persistent organic pollutants, which bioaccumulate at alarming rates in fat-soluble tissue of animals, estrogen, antibiotics, and possibly even harmful bacteria which will upset your gut glora and inflame the liver, colon and kidneys. The cooked steak has a dangerous amount of acrylamide and other carcinogens produced when flesh is cooked at high temperatures. Olive oil is just empty calories - just unnecessary fat with the majority of nutritional benefits destroyed by the extraction process. High amount of sodium from red meat is also known to increase blood pressure and cause insulin resistance. Nitrites and nitrates have also been shown to increase insulin resistance and to impair the function of the pancreatic beta cells. Finally, there is the heme iron found in the meat which is quite damaging if consumed in excess.
Now, I really don't think you need to worry, especially if your genetics don't predispose you to any chronic illness. But, I am of the opinion the outlined meals are not ideal. Maybe you're not interested in pursuing a gold nutrition standard each day and at each meal, and that's perfectly understandable! However, let's agree there is room for improvement, especially if you struggle with BMI, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, mood problems, attention defecit, or other ills, many of which are caused or at least exacerbated by the foods I've recommended avoiding.
On a slight tangent, have you used the website, Cronometer? It basically tallies up all the foods consumed in a day and gives a highly detailed report of what you ate, right down to each amino acid profile and the like. It's free - I really recommend checking it out!
>It even appears you're meeting the World Health Organization's recommendation to get at least 55% of calories from carbohydrates and probably getting enough fiber (which only 3% of Americans do!)
This doubtful; while the total carbs of this diet might reach this threshold- Most designers of well formed teratogenic diets are targeting net carbs (<30g). I would imagine this fiber portion of the carbs (well over 50% in this case) does not really count towards caloric carbs.
>you've already exceeded the daily recommended intake for cholesterol (300 mg; each egg contains approximately 250 mg)
Unless you have the right (wrong?) mutations, I think the jury is still out on this. Would you be surprised if I told you my serum cholesterol has not been negatively impacted?
>Nitrites and nitrates have also been shown to increase insulin resistance and
These meals should be limited to what naturally occurs- which is minimal compared to processed meat.
>However, let's agree there is room for improvement, especially if you struggle with BMI, high blood pressure..
This diet made it easy (satiety perspective) to shed 60 lbs and take my blood pressure from 138/75 -> 112/66. So while I cannot speak for others I really must disagree for my own account.
>On a slight tangent, have you used the website, Cronometer?
Very cool website, thanks for the share.
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
his frame of reference is so incompatible with what you're trying to communicate that he literally can't even talk to you like an adult.
you might as well try to convince him gravity pulls things up.
Oh, dear.
First of all, meat and dairy don't HAVE meaningful amounts of transfat. Problematic transfats are man-made.
Secondly, there is NO proven link at all between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol absent carbs, Essentially all blood cholesterol is manufactured by the liver.
By all means, display your "credible evidence" to the contrary.
In fact, they absolutely do. It's no doubt hydrogenated oils found in processed snack foods add trans fat as well, hence my emphasis on whole plant foods.
> The major dietary sources of trans fats listed in decreasing order. Processed foods and oils provide approximately 80 percent of trans fats in the diet, compared to 20 percent that occur naturally in food from animal sources
> #1 Cakes, cookies, crackers, pies, bread, etc.
> #2 Animal products
> #3 Margarine
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/ch...
> there is NO proven link at all between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol
Surely you jest?
> Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of predicted change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1534437
Or do you suppose this is all just a grand conspiracy by the fruit and vegetable industries?
Here's a clear example of your intellectual dishonesty. You specifically cut out the "absent carbs" term when quoting me and then rattled off studies that specifically did not control for carb consumption.
I would change "NO proven link" to "only a weakly correlated link (assuming the patient is not a member of the 8-15% of the population estimated to have a mutation related to improper cholesterol homeostasis)"
:D
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low...
First study:
> Dr. Hill reports having received consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola
Second study:
> This study proves a principle and does not provide clinical guidance; given the known benefits of fat restriction, future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed.
Third study:
> The study was designed to compare weight loss and cardiovascular risk in the short term; our long-term results, although appearing successful, must be considered as anecdotal, and further long-term follow-up studies must be conducted to confirm these findings.
Fourth study:
> Although advocates for very low carbohydrate diets are likely to embrace the results of this study, several points of caution need to be emphasized. First, a single study of a specific dietary regimen cannot provide a full assessment of safety and efficacy. Despite this study being the longest randomized, controlled trial of a very low carbohydrate diet reported, our results are still limited by the 6-month time frame. Whether the very low carbohydrate diet will produce sustained weight loss and continued improvement in cardiovascular risk factors over longer periods of time remains to be determined; the gradual increase in carbohydrate consumption in the final 3 months of the study suggests that some degree of recidivism is likely in persons on this diet. In addition, increased dietary fat has been linked to certain types of cancer and may have effects on cardiovascular health beyond the risk factors assessed in this study.
Fifth study:
> Financial Interest: Dr Hennekens is funded by the Agatston Research Institute, a nonprofit foundation, as Director of Research.
Sixth study:
> Participants were healthy and were followed for only 24 weeks, factors that limit generalization of our results. The low-carbohydrate diet has not been studied extensively in patients with chronic illness, and certain patients may require close medical supervision when following this diet. Furthermore, weight loss resulting from the low-carbohydrate diet may be difficult to maintain after 24 weeks.
> Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests: Grants received: E.C. Westman (Robert C. Atkins Foundation); Grants pending: E.C. Westman and W.S. Yancy Jr. (Robert C. Atkins Foundation)
Seventh study:
> This study was supported by a grant from The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.
Eight study:
> There were initially 20 subjects enrolled in each experimental group [...] Over the course of the study, four subjects dropped out of the LF group and five dropped out of the LC group.
Ninth study:
> 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. [calorie restriction does not work in the long term, period]
Tenth study:
> Carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake. [saturated fat causes CVD and other chronic illness]
Eleventh study:
> Mood and other symptoms were evaluated by participant self-report using the Atkins Health Indicator Test [I'm sure that's not at all biased /s]
Twelfth study:
> Limitations included the lack of a valid and comparable assessment of individual adherence to the 4 different diets, the lack of data on whether participants had familiarity using any of the specific study diets prior to enrolling in the trial, and the lack of assessment of satiety.
Thirteenth study:
> Whether either of these diets would produce similar outcomes over longer periods and under ad libitum conditions or in populations that are more vulnerable to adverse effects, such as persons with specific psychological difficulties, requires further investigation.
Seriously, I had to stop at that. I'm sure the rest are also short-sighted and cannot be generalized as a healthful diet.
I gave it a try myself and judged it by all the objective and subjective measures at my disposal. It works (at least for me).
I can respect your skepticism, are the pending studies being done by http://nusi.org/ well enough designed to be considered weighty by you?
By the same measure, we could argue smoking cigarettes is a reasonable, even healthful thing to do (on a slight tangent: exactly that was suggested by doctors in the 50's and 60's) - after all, we all know heavy smokers who haven't dropped dead, but on the contrary seem alive and thriving.
I'm glad it worked for you, but have you also fairly and objectively evaluated a plant-based, high-carb, low-fat diet? I think only then can the two be compared without bias, at least as I see it.
Regarding NuSI - I could write many paragraphs about the organization. If you have some time, please do check out these critical, detailed videos: http://plantpositive.com/warning-signs-nusi-guys-1/ and let me know what you think.
I hope you have a cite for that, as it ignores the basics of natural selection.
There is no way "nature" would select for a means to reduce the discomfort of starving to death, as death would remove that being from the gene pool, leaving that mechanism out of the gene pool as well.