Ketogenic diet, it works..

[james_s]

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.

[cdev]

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.

[cdev]

..
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.

That 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. Sugar and salt kills you..
[url]https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salt-reduction[/url]

I think we are a lot closer to figuring this out now than we were a few years go.

Lots of very common environmental pollutants are endocrine disruptors that trigger morbid obesity by changing the body's energy homeostasis, by impacting PPAR-gamma.  These chemicals are now known as "obesogenic" or obesogens. Many of them are present in plastics.

They cause a lot of serious and expensive health problems like various cancers and metabolic illness, and threaten human reproduction.health problems.

No, lack of sugar and salt kills you. It's this kind of simplistic wrongheaded sloganizing that drives me mad. Both salt and sugar are essential to 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. Some people most definitely are sensitive to excess salt intake - there very much is such a thing as salt sensitive high blood pressure, but they are in the minority and the 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. {/quote]

Read this body of search iresults..

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 be stop gaining 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.

[bd139]

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.

It 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.

[Zero999]

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.

Was 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.

[MultiMike]

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

[Ed.Kloonk]

Welcome aboard, Mike.

[Zero999]

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

You'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.

[MultiMike]

You've demonstrated why low carb diets are unhealthy quite well there.

I 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.

The fact you need to take a multivitamin, is a sign it's unhealthy. A healthy diet doesn't require supplements.

I 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.

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.

I 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.

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.

I 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. 

[Cerebus]

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.

Fun fact: Bananas 330mg potassium per 100g, Potato crisps 1328mg potassium per 100g. (Source McCance and Widdowson, current edition).

[bd139]

Thank fuck for that 

[Zero999]

You've demonstrated why low carb diets are unhealthy quite well there.

I 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.

Yes, 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.

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.

Low 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.

The fact you need to take a multivitamin, is a sign it's unhealthy. A healthy diet doesn't require supplements.

I 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.

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.

I 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.

I 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.

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.

I 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. 

You'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.

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.

Fun fact: Bananas 330mg potassium per 100g, Potato crisps 1328mg potassium per 100g. (Source McCance and Widdowson, current edition).

I 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.

[Cerebus]

You've demonstrated why low carb diets are unhealthy quite well there.

I 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.

Yes, 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.

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.

Low 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.

Pronounced "Grrrrrrrr-elin" because of the noise your stomach makes.

The fact you need to take a multivitamin, is a sign it's unhealthy. A healthy diet doesn't require supplements.

I 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.

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.

I 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.

I 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.

They 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 not fully understood. 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.

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.

I 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. 

You'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.

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.

Fun fact: Bananas 330mg potassium per 100g, Potato crisps 1328mg potassium per 100g. (Source McCance and Widdowson, current edition).

I 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.

You're taking the whole crisps thing too seriously, it was merely an amusing diversion.

[PlainName]

Yes, 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.

I 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.

[Zero999]

You're taking the whole crisps thing too seriously, it was merely an amusing diversion.

Then use a freaking smilie.

Yes, 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.

I 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.

But 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/

Many people get fat after giving up smoking (is that a diet?) to replace the act of putting something in their gob.

That 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.

[Cerebus]

You're taking the whole crisps thing too seriously, it was merely an amusing diversion.

Then use a freaking smilie.

I 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.

[PlainName]

But if the change/lifestyle in diet isn't sustainable, then it isn't healthy, in the long term.

Yes. 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.

It simply isn't true that most obese people can lose weight and keep it off forever, by...

Well, 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.

One thing which is known to result in long term weight loss is gastric bypass surgery.

There are downsides to gastric bypass and people are known to try and cheat it. It's not a magic bullet.

    Many people get fat after giving up smoking (is that a diet?) to replace the act of putting something in their gob.

That simply isn't the case. People gain weight after quitting smoking, because nicotine is an appetite supressent.

I 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 food per 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.

---
[1] 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.

[Zero999]

You're taking the whole crisps thing too seriously, it was merely an amusing diversion.

Then use a freaking smilie.

I 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.

People with adequate intelligence know that sarcasm doesn't transmit through text and use smilies accordingly

But if the change/lifestyle in diet isn't sustainable, then it isn't healthy, in the long term.

Yes. 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.

It simply isn't true that most obese people can lose weight and keep it off forever, by...

Well, 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.

Exercise 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.

One thing which is known to result in long term weight loss is gastric bypass surgery.

There are downsides to gastric bypass and people are known to try and cheat it. It's not a magic bullet.

You'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.

    Many people get fat after giving up smoking (is that a diet?) to replace the act of putting something in their gob.

That simply isn't the case. People gain weight after quitting smoking, because nicotine is an appetite suppressant.

I 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 food per 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).

Why 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.

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.

---
[1] 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.

If 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/

[cdev]

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.

[MultiMike]

Mammals cannot live without salt, they need it either from food or add pure salt if not enough salt is in food.

True, 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

[cdev]

So if you own cows you can give them lettuce instead of salt?

(Cows have to be given extraneous salt)

[Zero999]

Mammals cannot live without salt, they need it either from food or add pure salt if not enough salt is in food.

True, but the amount required is ridiculously easy to get even from lettuce. 

That'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.

There is no physical health requirement for salting food - it's about flavour, enjoyment and thereby in a roundabout way mental health.

Mike

That 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.

[Cerebus]

Mammals cannot live without salt, they need it either from food or add pure salt if not enough salt is in food.

True, 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

The 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.

[cdev]

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)