Ketogenic diet, it works..

[Bud]

It is not that anyone here argues that it dies not "work", the thing is it is an extreme that may cause its own problems.

[bd139]

Exactly that. The issue is a lifestyle change needs to be made and you can’t sustain keto forever. So when you’re done you’ve not changed your lifestyle.

[Benta]

This is the kind of subject where everyone has an (un)informed opinion and belief. Science is non-existent. Millions of "research" reports and articles are out there, and every single one that the Cochrane Collaboration has looked at has been shot down.
Today it's also been infested with "save the world" beliefs, which have nothing to do with nutrition ("meat is bad for the climate").

If you want to inform yourself about the nutritional part, I recommend:
Gary Taubes, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", UK version "The Diet Delusion".

Contrary to most other books, it's not written by someone propagating an own agenda, but a respected scientific journalist.

Put your money where your mouth is, it'll set you back around 20 Euro on Amazon (paperback).

[nctnico]

This is the kind of subject where everyone has an (un)informed opinion and belief. Science is non-existent. Millions of "research" reports and articles are out there, and every single one that the Cochrane Collaboration has looked at has been shot down.
Today it's also been infested with "save the world" beliefs, which have nothing to do with nutrition ("meat is bad for the climate").

If you want to inform yourself about the nutritional part, I recommend:
Gary Taubes, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", UK version "The Diet Delusion".

What the Corona pandemic has shown loud and clear is: one expert is no expert. And the same goes for dietary advise.

Truth in real science only exists by consensus between a large group of scientists looking at many angles. Which is why it is much better to follow diet advice from neutral bodies like the WHO; those are composed by a group of scientists who are not cherry picking information. If Mr Taubes is really on to something, the WHO will adapt their dietary advise accordingly but only if it is backed by solid evidence. Mr Taubes could be completely wrong or even falsifying his findings. After all dietary books are big business so there is plenty of incentive to dream something up that may sound to make sense but in fact is a whole lot of BS.

[bd139]

Exactly. My advice came from the NHS not someone trying to sell an ideology or books.

[Benta]

You both missed the "journalist" part. He's interviewing (and reporting about) people that know something about nutrition and that's what the book is about.

And dissing the Cochrane Collaboration in favour of WHO means you don't understand UN politics.

[nctnico]

You both missed the "journalist" part. He's interviewing (and reporting about) people that know something about nutrition and that's what the book is about.

That is even worse. Journalists are not experts in the field they write stories about and more often than not they are strongly biased.

[Benta]

Ah, well. Trumpism at it's best...
Never mind. You and BD139 (old, medium power transistor... fits somehow) cuddle between yourselves.
I should have stayed away, these kind of threads lead nowhere. My mistake, sorry.

[olkipukki]

Have any of you tried it? What foods have you liked? We are looking for new meal ideas..

Personally, I didn't know anyone who be able to sustain a long term whatever fancy diet they have been applied and result they have achieved initially.

The hard to be first in 500m sprint, but much harder to keep running a marathon and stay "alive", a mindset is different...

IMHO, a simple* approach with individual adjustments always works ... without "analog" voodoo black magic, just stupid "digital" count until one

 

* it's sound simple, not easy to get quality ingredients

[Miyuki]

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

[nctnico]

Ah, well. Trumpism at it's best...

It is not Trumpism at all. On the contrary, it is common sense. The error in your reasoning is to take someone's assertion that questions an established truth as a new truth without any scientific backing. Science doesn't work that way.

Example: a while ago it was argued that combining (IIRC) spinach with some type of foods was not good because it caused formation of unwanted chemicals in the digestive track. There was so much scientific support for this to occur that the official advise was not to combine spinach with other foods (better safe than sorry). Deeper research revealed that it was a false alarm.

There is one problem with general rules. Different populations tend to have vastly different metabolism.
You can clearly see it even in animal experiments. With the same amount of food and the same physical exercise. They can be very different in weight and fat/muscle ratio.

That is true but nevertheless what is healthy and unhealthy food is pretty much standard.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Breakfast: fish (salmon, tuna, mackerel, herring, trout, sardines), mushrooms, toast, baked beans.

Baked beans make you fart.
The more you fart, the better you feel.
Baked beans for every meal!

[Cerebus]

Ah, well. Trumpism at it's best...

It is not Trumpism at all. On the contrary, it is common sense. The error in your reasoning is to take someone's assertion that questions an established truth as a new truth without any scientific backing. Science doesn't work that way.

Example: a while ago it was argued that combining (IIRC) spinach with some type of foods was not good because it caused formation of unwanted chemicals in the digestive track. There was so much scientific support for this to occur that the official advise was not to combine spinach with other foods (better safe than sorry). Deeper research revealed that it was a false alarm.

His "Trumpism" reaction was to your knee jerk response to immediately condemn someone's work because they are a journalist. He was responding directly to this:

You both missed the "journalist" part. He's interviewing (and reporting about) people that know something about nutrition and that's what the book is about.

That is even worse. Journalists are not experts in the field they write stories about and more often than not they are strongly biased.

Moreover, you seem to be incapable of differentiating between a Red Top's political journalists and science journalists who work at places like "Science" and "New Scientist".

I'd suggest that you go out and find who the Cochrane Collective are before you start give lessons on what constitutes "good science" to someone advocating taking notice of their research. "Cochrane Reviews" are widely regarded as the Gold Standard in evaluating the collected published research in areas of Biomedicine.

[BrokenYugo]

It works for some people and certainly highlights what I consider the main problem with the American diet (eat a bunch of simple carbs, starving in 4 hours due to sugar crash, repeat twice daily) but it isn't magic, calories in calories out still applies, you don't lose weight without creating a calorie deficit somehow.

As mentioned by others 10lb/week is super aggressive, 1%/week is generally recommended as a maximum, that said the first couple weeks tend to give weird numbers, the next couple are when you'll see the real trend.

Personally I went from 240 to 160 in a year without much more than a cheap scale and counting calories in my head, ate whatever, learned what to avoid along the way.

Drink a lot of water.

[cdev]

No bread or carbs. So, no toast.
No beans. Everything else is okay. Mushrooms.and cheese.... mmmm... Most greens are kay too. I am eating burgers and cheese held and wrapped in lettuce..

Breakfast: fish (salmon, tuna, mackerel, herring, trout, sardines), mushrooms, toast, baked beans.

[nctnico]

Ah, well. Trumpism at it's best...

It is not Trumpism at all. On the contrary, it is common sense. The error in your reasoning is to take someone's assertion that questions an established truth as a new truth without any scientific backing. Science doesn't work that way.

Example: a while ago it was argued that combining (IIRC) spinach with some type of foods was not good because it caused formation of unwanted chemicals in the digestive track. There was so much scientific support for this to occur that the official advise was not to combine spinach with other foods (better safe than sorry). Deeper research revealed that it was a false alarm.

His "Trumpism" reaction was to your knee jerk response to immediately condemn someone's work because they are a journalist. He was responding directly to this:

You both missed the "journalist" part. He's interviewing (and reporting about) people that know something about nutrition and that's what the book is about.

That is even worse. Journalists are not experts in the field they write stories about and more often than not they are strongly biased.

Moreover, you seem to be incapable of differentiating between a Red Top's political journalists and science journalists who work at places like "Science" and "New Scientist".

I'd suggest that you go out and find who the Cochrane Collective are before you start give lessons on what constitutes "good science" to someone advocating taking notice of their research. "Cochrane Reviews" are widely regarded as the Gold Standard in evaluating the collected published research in areas of Biomedicine.

Published papers are only the first step towards a new theory becoming accepted (or not) by the scientific community. IOW: the results of a paper may not be true after all; the only thing a reviewer can do is check whether the used methodogies and data analysis are sound. A reviewer is not going to repeat an experiment to see if the results are right or wrong.

So in the end publishing a book based on some (cherry picked?) research papers is not going to be a good source of factual information. It could be a good summary of the state of research but you shouldn't rely on it to be the absolute truth. The scientific proof just isn't there.

[Cerebus]

Ah, well. Trumpism at it's best...

It is not Trumpism at all. On the contrary, it is common sense. The error in your reasoning is to take someone's assertion that questions an established truth as a new truth without any scientific backing. Science doesn't work that way.

Example: a while ago it was argued that combining (IIRC) spinach with some type of foods was not good because it caused formation of unwanted chemicals in the digestive track. There was so much scientific support for this to occur that the official advise was not to combine spinach with other foods (better safe than sorry). Deeper research revealed that it was a false alarm.

His "Trumpism" reaction was to your knee jerk response to immediately condemn someone's work because they are a journalist. He was responding directly to this:

You both missed the "journalist" part. He's interviewing (and reporting about) people that know something about nutrition and that's what the book is about.

That is even worse. Journalists are not experts in the field they write stories about and more often than not they are strongly biased.

Moreover, you seem to be incapable of differentiating between a Red Top's political journalists and science journalists who work at places like "Science" and "New Scientist".

I'd suggest that you go out and find who the Cochrane Collective are before you start give lessons on what constitutes "good science" to someone advocating taking notice of their research. "Cochrane Reviews" are widely regarded as the Gold Standard in evaluating the collected published research in areas of Biomedicine.

Published papers are only the first step towards a new theory becoming accepted (or not) by the scientific community. IOW: the results of a paper may not be true after all; the only thing a reviewer can do is check whether the used methodogies and data analysis are sound. A reviewer is not going to repeat an experiment to see if the results are right or wrong.

So in the end publishing a book based on some (cherry picked?) research papers is not going to be a good source of factual information. It could be a good summary of the state of research but you shouldn't rely on it to be the absolute truth. The scientific proof just isn't there.

I can't decide if you're trying to argue that all scientific knowledge is conditional, therefore we can't know anything, therefore there is no point in writing anything down for public consumption  or reading it, or that you've just decided a priori that you don't like the book in question, without reading it, and are forwarding random arguments to support that position. Given the knee jerk attitude displayed to all journalists I find myself minded to believe the latter.

[nctnico]

No, my point is very simple: there is a whole flurry of governmental agencies (each developed country has one) which basically all consists of groups of scientists that universally agree on the food pyramid (presented in one way or another and tweaked for local eating habits) as the best diet for humans. As I wrote before: science is truth by consensus amongst scientists. How does a book about diet claiming something else fit in there? From a truth by consensus perspective not at all because it is written by one author quoting from papers selected by that author.

It is like taking a random book about programming techniques and saying that is the authorative book on programming techniques. Start such a topic on this forum and you'll see a whole lot of people will make good points about what is wrong about that book, why and which books might be better. It probably turns out none of the books is absolutely true due to personal bias of the authors. IOW: books can be informative but they don't contain the absolute truth.

[Cerebus]

How does a book about diet claiming something else fit in there? From a truth by consensus perspective not at all because it is written by one author quoting from papers selected by that author.

So I was right. A book you haven't read that you've formed an a priori opinion about. You haven't even used the information sources at your immediate disposal as presented by Benta to determine the nature of the content before condemning it. Very rational, scientific and not an emotional response at all.

[bd139]

Oh glory a meta discussion.

I would discard the book as well regardless of the credibility or nature of it. Discuss my reasoning 

[Cerebus]

Oh glory a meta discussion.

I would discard the book as well regardless of the credibility or nature of it. Discuss my reasoning 

Too many big words? 

[bd139]

Excellent retort

Realistically it'd be better for your objectives to go for a walk than read it. Lest thou end up a fat man with tsundoku. I speak from experience.

[Cerebus]

Excellent retort

Realistically it'd be better for your objectives to go for a walk than read it. Lest thou end up a fat man with tsundoku. I speak from experience.

The solution to 50% of medical problems, and 95% of first world medical problems is "Get some exercise you 'orrible little man. ... And get your 'air cut!".

[ace1903]

There is noting wrong if one reads and is interested in improving own health. Even here, advices given by others had bad effect for me.
I walked 5 days per week 8km (~5miles) from work back to home 4 years with zero effect(gained weight and increased blood pressure).
When pandemic started I started over weekends to go to nearby hill and walking 1km uphill to middle point that is 250m higher than starting point and 1km downhill. Gradually increased to going to the top which is 800m higher than starting point. I now I am doing that exercise without any difficulties and I can do any other exercises also. For me walking without elevation has zero effect, for someone else maybe has great benefits.

Someone mentioned zero salt diet. Unintentionally I lowered my salt intake and got nasty headaches. Took a while for me to find what caused them. French fries with a ton of salt is something that should be eliminated but
that other extreme with zero salt is something only for 90years old people with difficulties to move. Healthy middle-aged individual needs salt intake. Excess intake eliminate with sweating during exercise.

I wish this to be place where opinions and experiences are exchanged. After all, we all have similar working day with lot of time spent seating in front of PC, we enjoy more to see film or read technical literature than going to       gym. 

[bd139]

There is noting wrong if one reads and is interested in improving own health. Even here, advices given by others had bad effect for me.
I walked 5 days per week 8km (~5miles) from work back to home 4 years with zero effect(gained weight and increased blood pressure).
When pandemic started I started over weekends to go to nearby hill and walking 1km uphill to middle point that is 250m higher than starting point and 1km downhill. Gradually increased to going to the top which is 800m higher than starting point. I now I am doing that exercise without any difficulties and I can do any other exercises also. For me walking without elevation has zero effect, for someone else maybe has great benefits.

Someone mentioned zero salt diet. Unintentionally I lowered my salt intake and got nasty headaches. Took a while for me to find what caused them. French fries with a ton of salt is something that should be eliminated but
that other extreme with zero salt is something only for 90years old people with difficulties to move. Healthy middle-aged individual needs salt intake. Excess intake eliminate with sweating during exercise.

I wish this to be place where opinions and experiences are exchanged. After all, we all have similar working day with lot of time spent seating in front of PC, we enjoy more to see film or read technical literature than going to       gym. 

Some good points about walking. The thing you need to do is elevate your heart rate which is not something that you tend to do with casual walking. This is one reason I took up running and hill walking. Alas the fitter you get the harder it is to raise your heart rate 

The salt thing is a good example of where fads fall over. Balance is the only answer.