FH Fitness Thread

[ECA]

This is a fun read from a doctor in 1958, who realised the medical establishment has been spouting low fat bullshit for longer than we've been alive.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/chap1.htm

 

[Chilly]

Cool links. I will no longer give a single bit of attention to anyone moaning at me about the way I eat.

 

[Scouse]

This is quite simply, bullshit.

Sounds to me like you're reacting to someone telling you that something you really like (because it's getting you results) may not be all it's cracked up to be.

Even your own website - which bills itself as "News that impacts your health that other media sources may censor" (/tinfoil*) admits that the research into the ketosis diet is short term and there's not much knowledge of long-term impacts as there's not been that much quality research done - so the science is ramping up.


Ketogenic diets have been used for some time in the treatment of epilepsy for children. They're successful. A look at a systematic review of the high-quality randomised controlled science (rather than a website and a doctor who was selling a book's opinion) on this does conclude:

Several large prospective observational studies assessing the effectiveness of ketogenic diets in epilepsy reported its efficacy in a significant proportion of patients. Recently, this view has been strengthened by the publication of several randomised controlled trials of ketogenic and related diets. However, there are recognised adverse effects, with the short-term adverse effects profile being gastro-intestinal related (30%), and the long-term effects being cardiovascular complications.

I'm not saying Keto isn't a useful short term tool. I'm saying it's a risky jump for a long-term lifestyle.


Maybe the "other media sources" may censor the news that that website puts out because they think it's irresponsible to promote it as a long term lifestyle when the science isn't done?





*/tinfoil: A website that's carrying Wooooo!!! be scared of vaccinations - it's a conspiracy!11!!!1! stories.

Appeals to "common sense" (the doctors story - it seems logical, but tbh tldr) are no substitute for clinical evidence @Chilly...



Edit: And it's carrying stories about "alternative" medicine too. Such as Essential Oils Combat MRSA and Garlic Kills Brain Cancer

 

[Yoni]

I looked up an NHS collected review based on the cochrane rules before I posted and the increase in HDL and LDL cholesterol was in that.

If you look stuff up online you'll find that the vast majority of articles say that BMI is a pile of shit and doesn't apply to anyone - which is rubbish. It's great at what it does - which is tell the majority of the population whether they're fat or not.

Of course, upon hearing they are fat most people try to say that they're somehow special and that the BMI scale doesn't apply to them - or that the whole thing is shit

Sorry but you eat healthy fats.... Ie coconut oil fatty fish and avocado.

I find it unbelievable that some doctors are still promoting lfhc diets for weight loss when there is a growing body of evidence (please read Gary Taubs) to the contrary.

I am actual proof and changed my local surgeries point of view after they monitored my blood monthly whilst in ketosis. Not only did my cholesterol levels improve substantially, my blood pressure decreased, my diabetes (type 2) symptoms have completely gone.

Due to years of trying to lose weight using lfhc (recommended by the nhs) I am now am insulin sensitive which means that my body fat pc will increase at a greater rate than someone who is not. Ie it is high levels of sugar which encourage the body to retain fat not dietary healthy fats. If however you are going to fill your body with pressed vegetable oils and transfats spec omega 6 then you will run into cholesterol issues...

Finally I live in a country which naturally eats lower amounts of simple carbs ( although they love potatos) and where you can buy in the supermarket keto friendly products because it is recognised that this is not an unhealthy way to eat. Here it is also more accessible to all walks of life is when I look in the canteen at lunchtime (we are an office and a warehouse) 95% either eat 5:2 or lchf.

Note low carb != zero carb. Low carb is upto 20% of dietary intake. Some carb cycle some maintain a balance, we all have days where carbs exceed 20%.

 

[ECA]

Sounds to me like you're reacting to someone telling you that something you really like (because it's getting you results) may not be all it's cracked up to be.

Read any of the actual scientific studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

From the excerpts

"
RESULTS:
The weight and body mass index of the patients decreased significantly (P<0.0001). The level of total cholesterol decreased from week 1 to week 24. HDL cholesterol levels significantly increased, whereas LDL cholesterol levels significantly decreased after treatment. The level of triglycerides decreased significantly following 24 weeks of treatment. The level of blood glucose significantly decreased. The changes in the level of urea and creatinine were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS:
The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated.
"



The problem is, you have a small group of legit government scientists trying to get funded, vs 20 studies funded by a food company, they bury the 19 that did good science with NDAs and the 1 that fudged it to produce something they want to hear gets published publicly. You have like $0 broadcasting what really works, vs $billions telling you to eat their healthy shit ( that's loaded to fuck with sugar and carbs - BUT ITS LOW FAT ).

 

[Aoami]

Whats wrong with a healthy balanced diet like a normal person? People don't stick to these fad diets for life do they?

 

[Scouse]

Read any of the actual scientific studies.

I did. And I posted it. The link I posted is a meta-study which deliberately excludes co-opted studies.

The cochrane collaberation provides a service by which the method of each "scientific" study is examined by professionals, then the shit co-opted and able-to-be-falsified ones are discarded.

Only the ones that meet standards for method and transparency can be included in the meta studies. So it's a more reliable method of finding out the scientific truth than quoting single-studies off the internet - especially when we don't necessarily check the methods and reliability of the studies ourselves (because, frankly, we're not qualified to do so - so leave it to the experts).

And they said (last time I'll post on it, I don't want to derail the thread):

there are recognised adverse effects

...

@Yoni, I'm not saying it does no good. I'm saying there are risks - especially in the long term as we haven't done the science properly - and there are recognised adverse affects. Also - personal experience, whilst I'm pleased for you, doesn't have a bearing on the validity of the science unless you were part of one of the randomised controlled studies used.

So do it short-term. Then revert to a med diet maybe. Or ignore me and do what the hell you like!

 

[ECA]

Actual science if you want to read up and be informed rather than spouting "common sense" and "everyone knows"

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
http://jama.ama-assn.org/lookup/pmid?view=long&pmid=17341711
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/19/2141
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(10)00120-4/abstract
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/oby201160a.html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/580.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17971178
http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/3/567.long
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v57212m331741w24/
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jpem.2012.25.issue-7-8/jpem-2012-0131/jpem-2012-0131.xml
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/36

 

[ECA]

Whats wrong with a healthy balanced diet like a normal person? People don't stick to these fad diets for life do they?

Honestly, I'd liken it to "the earth is flat, you fall off and there are dragons and shit" or "God is real, if you don't believe you're a crazy person", there is plenty of really dumb shit that humans have believed is true for the longest times are are simply wrong.

 

[Scouse]

Big list of stuff ECA* is clearly not qualified to check whether is actual science or pseudoscience - whilst ignoring the cochrane collaberation's meta-review of peer-revied best-practice science on the subject, that's previously been posted

Fixed.

*or me. So I further refer you to the meta studies of best-practice research


Edit: Looking through a few of those links @ECA - I'm not disputing (I agree) that short-term weightloss is better on keto. However, you seem to be wilfully ignoring the scientifically-verified long term adverse effects. As I said originally - probably because you like the results you're getting.

 

[ECA]

Yet you probably havnt looked at our read anything I just linked, and won't link whatever it is you're talking about - and everything I just linked is generally pretty high quality.

 

[Yoni]

It is not just me though I am an example. Look at these forums look at the net redit and paelo sites. Read the science again ie all of it ( I have been since 2007...). Taubs has the clearest explanation and if that is too heavy for you please watch fat head which makes it very simple to understand. Then read some more and carry on reading because I very much doubt in a few months of reading all your questions will be answered.

As for whether people do this long term the answer is for some yes, me included 90% of my eating is low carb especially simple carbs. I had pasta twice last year for example. I know this because I rigorously record my food on a daily basis .

 

[Scouse]

Yet you probably havnt looked at our read anything I just linked, and won't link whatever it is you're talking about - and everything I just linked is generally pretty high quality.

LOL.

1) I *have* linked it.
2) I *have* read some of your links (see above).
3) And to top it - I've evidenced that neither of us is particularly well qualified to determine the quality of scientific studies (as can be seen by you posting conspiracy websites).

But m8. Knock yourself out. I'm glad it's working for you. I'd just say don't do it long-term - but feel free to ignore the science that says "watch it"

I very much doubt in a few months of reading all your questions will be answered.

I don't need to read for months Yoni. I only wanted answer to a single question: "Are there adverse effects"?

I looked at a single meta study - a scientific meta study of the best available science - and it says there are adverse affects long term.

That's it. Case closed. Any more reading is just people searching for a reason to keep on Keto long-term - self justification if you like.

 

[ECA]

However, you seem to be wilfully ignoring the scientifically-verified long term adverse effects.

I mean the swedish recommendations - come from a 16000 STUDY review over two years and recommends LCHF.
Yes I linked to a site that discusses it and also covers some random other stuff elsewhere on it, but here's the study itself.

http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

 

[Scouse]

Just to flip this argument against me - to keep @ECA and @Yoni happy:

I'm on the 5:2 diet. Have been for 18 months. The science for alternative day fasting, never mind 5:2 specifically, is nowhere near in. There may well be long-term adverse effects that we don't know about. There are certainly short-term considerations that we do know about that can be managed.

But I'm still doing it. And will do until science tells me I'm stupid (or not).


The only thing with Keto that differs with the 5:2 thing - science does know that there are adverse effects.

 

[ECA]

Relink please btw. to this study. Like I said.

Science. Facts. etc.

Do yourself a favour and read the conclusions of the studies I linked.

 

[Scouse]

here's the study itself.

http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

You fluent in both Swedish and the assessment of scientific studies for their validity now ECA?


Why so hard to accept that there are adverse effects that science has confirmed?

The whole point of science is that you cannot ignore the evidence.

Relink please btw. to this study. Like I said.

Or scroll up, read my post, read the link?

If we're getting to this level of silly I'm out

Edit: But I will requote for you:

Implications for practice
Several large prospective observational studies assessing the effectiveness of ketogenic diets in epilepsy reported its efficacy in a significant proportion of patients. Recently, this view has been strengthened by the publication of several randomised controlled trials of ketogenic and related diets. However, there are recognised adverse effects, with the short-term adverse effects profile being gastro-intestinal related (30%), and the long-term effects being cardiovascular complications. These are yet to be addressed

 

[Yoni]

No scouse but I live in Sweden and low carb is a normal way of eating here.... Some do 5:2 and keto concurrently

 

[ECA]

I looked and cant find your link, thats why i asked you to repost.

I mean you can surely cite the source you're re quoting yourself on right?
Not just "there are studies", "it is known", like an actual link to an actual study. I provided what - 20+, you're struggling to give me one :/

 

[Scouse]

I looked and cant find your link, thats why i asked you to repost.

I mean you can surely cite the source you're re quoting yourself on right?
Not just "there are studies", "it is known", like an actual link to an actual study. I provided what - 20+, you're struggling to give me one :/

Jeesus. You didn't look very hard. It's on this bleeding page. Anyone'd think you're not serious about challenging your own beliefs:

Ketogenic diets have been used for some time in the treatment of epilepsy for children. They're successful. A look at a systematic review of the high-quality randomised controlled science (rather than a website and a doctor who was selling a book's opinion) on this does conclude:

Adverse effects yadda yadda yadda

I'm not saying Keto isn't a useful short term tool. I'm saying it's a risky jump for a long-term lifestyle.

That meta study of best-available science discarding the shit conspiracy stuff - and specifies what studies have been included.

I mean. By all means post something else - but it doesn't destroy evidence. If you do - you're just ignoring evidence because you don't like it - because it tells you something you don't want to hear.

But, as I said, knock yerself out m8

 

[ECA]

That study is based on 247 children ( 4 studies ) compare that to the volume in the studies i posted ( the 4th link - first lchf study - was 322 adults... ).

The study you mention actually isn't investigating negative health outcomes, they simply mention potential long term ( assumed ) possibly poor outcomes on cardiovascular - because its high fat.
The studies I mention actually investigate that.

tldr, I have a larger sample size of relevant HQ scientific data on my side, vs your study of specifically epileptic children who have tummy problems but nothing else.

I mean w/e, ignore the science all you want

 

[Yoni]

Additionally the study rates it's conclusion on adverse affects as weak (very low).

 

[ECA]

I'd also like to mention I deliberated about lchf for a long time before starting it, because it ran so contrary to everything I believed at the time.
Thats why I specifically went and found as much science as possible.
Really the progress pics that frontpaged on reddit drew my attention and my original thoughts were like "wtf lol, that's some bullshit", then I saw more, and more and was interested and went to doing some reading.
I read a lot of studies and it made me realise "hey maybe this isn't bullshit".

I feel like even If I wasn't overweight and read what I've read I would be severely cutting carb consumption anyway, however if I wasn't overweight I doubt I would have looked into it.

 

[ECA]

just fyi, your meta study is 247 children, assumes CV risked based on high fat.

2nd link I posted

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long

Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke.
Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.

I guess a 350k sample size of adults that says heart disease isn't caused by saturated fat is bullshit?

The authors are 2 harvard professors and the director+assistant director of Atherosclerosis Research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute.

 

[Scouse]

just fyi

Cochrane meta study on:
Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease

This updated review suggested that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 14%

But we're straying off specifically Keto diet now.

Either way - I said I'm on the 5:2 in the absence of evidence...

 

[ECA]

Straight from that study:

There were no clear effects of dietary fat changes on total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04, 71,790
participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 65,978 participants).


If you actually read that study, the tldr is total dietary fat cannot be linked to any increase risked of cardiovascular issues. They draw a conclusion out of the air, that MAYBE type of fat is the problem. ( without considering anything else ).

 

[Billargh]

its probably her fanny mate

 

[ileks]

How do you guys plan to transition into a more normal diet after losing all your weight on keto? Genuine question.

 

[Billargh]

If I were in the same situation as them, I'd use the 'If It Fits Your Macros' calculator. Currently using it for 'bulking' (I fucking hate that term) and seems to help/work.

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

 

[Chilly]

How do you guys plan to transition into a more normal diet after losing all your weight on keto? Genuine question.

I'll probably spend a month increasing the amount of sugars I eat, but I'll probably never return to eating as many sugars as I used to (which was a shitload). I was doing a generalised low cal (but with standard ratios of sugars:fatsroteins) diet for a chunk of last year without any trouble so I don't think it'll be much of a problem for me.