Study: A Keto Diet Can Lead to Heart Scarring and Permanent Heart Damage

[ph1l]

Just curious, but whenever I hear stuff like this, or the thread title's claim, I often wonder why a hundred thousand years of diet evolution didn't lead to these problems with hunter gathers. Or maybe our ancestors were running around with Low T all throughout history?

I'd think some of the reasons could be

• Paleo diets are not necessarily ketogenic.
• Hunter-gatherers were likely not trying to lose weight and had little fat to burn off.
• They might not have typically lived long enough for these kinds of issues.
• They were physically more active than humans today.

And the ones running around with low T might would have been easy targets for competitors like

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'd think some of the reasons could be

• Paleo diets are not necessarily ketogenic.
• Hunter-gatherers were likely not trying to lose weight and had little fat to burn off.
• They might not have typically lived long enough for these kinds of issues.
• They were physically more active than humans today.

And the ones running around with low T might would have been easy targets for competitors like
View attachment 252826

While all Paleo diets are not necessarily ketogenic, many were. I agree with your second point, but not sure what that has to do with this. Hunter gatherers ate what they found. Period.

Agree with your third and fourth points, though I would argue that the fourth point is a discussion on activity, not the type of calories.

And I like your last point - that's almost certainly why they tasted better!

 

[El OchoCinco]

While all Paleo diets are not necessarily ketogenic, many were. I agree with your second point, but not sure what that has to do with this. Hunter gatherers ate what they found. Period.

Agree with your third and fourth points, though I would argue that the fourth point is a discussion on activity, not the type of calories.

And I like your last point - that's almost certainly why they tasted better!

I think the problem with today's keto is the influence of the dirty keto crowd that push this eat all the butter and bacon and fatty meat you want with a pat of butter snuck in with each bite. I have read the books by these pushers and it is quite sad how they take minimal science and push what works for them to an extreme. One of those books (blanking on who) was written by a naturally skinny guy with good metabolism so I doubt he would be heavy no matter what.

Our ancestors basically ate to survive while current day culture eats for pleasure and excess. Most dirty keto proponent (and I am NOT one of them) will tell you eat as much bacon, fatty meats and butter as you want. Remember our ancestors would eat animal or vegetation to live an dnot pig out at a banquet which was more balanced. No way they would kill an animal and simply eat all the fatty bacon and go churn butter to eat with every bite. Todays human is mostly a lazy piece of shit with a slow metabolism and accumuated metabolic syndrome so suddenly diving in keto does not magically undue years of shitty eating and genetic changes.

A good clean keto can be achieved with 40-50 net carbs which includes plenty of vegetables and certain fruits. Even if you don't get into ketosis, you will still burn fat with a good balance of not cheating and exercise. Some books have shown how targeting 100 total carbs in a day will still lead to weight loss by limiting refined sugars and useless carbs. it is not that carbs are the enemy, people's choices are.

Also good science backed studies will tell you to focus on healthy fats and not eat as much bacon as you want. I love bacon but no way I am eating a whole plate full of it.

Also... this was a Chinese study where they force fed a rat a shit load of fats...what rat is built for such a diet.... force feed a rat a shit load of twinkies and you get the same thing I would bet.

As with anything in the diet world, 90% is for selling books and plans and tries to tap into the human element of laziness and looking for get skinny quick method.

Any real lifestyle change of how you eat needs to be more reasoned and balanced for the individual and not sold wholesale.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Some books have shown how targeting 100 total carbs in a day will still lead to weight loss by limiting refined sugars and useless carbs. it is not that carbs are the enemy, people's choices are.

A hundred grams of carbs still seems low to me. That’s only 400 calories. What’s your macronutrient breakdown, proportionately?

 

[El OchoCinco]

A hundred grams of carbs still seems low to me. That’s only 400 calories. What’s your macronutrient breakdown, proportionately?

Well Net carbs so if you should be eating 30g of Fiber daily then it ends up being 130 grams of total carbs. That is about 520 calories. You could divde the rest in fat and protein but it depends on your activity level and whether you are power lifting or playing soccer. That is why it all depends on activity level. Not because activity is where most of the loss occurs but guides you in macros. if you are lifting 2 hours a day, things change.

If you like to eat a lot of bread and pastas then this approach is not the way to go and it is not even a topic worth discussing.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Well Net carbs so if you should be eating 30g of Fiber daily then it ends up being 130 grams of total carbs. That is about 520 calories. You could divde the rest in fat and protein but it depends on your activity level and whether you are power lifting or playing soccer. That is why it all depends on activity level. Not because activity is where most of the loss occurs but guides you in macros. if you are lifting 2 hours a day, things change.

If you like to eat a lot of bread and pastas then this approach is not the way to go and it is not even a topic worth discussing.

I don't really buy into the "net carb" business:

https://www.webmd.com/women/features/net-carb-debate

More than half of the calories I take in are from carbs, all of which are of the complex variety apart from a slice or two of sourdough walnut bread. I only work out twice a week, and no more than 25 minutes all in each time. Admittedly, the workouts are intense.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I think the problem with today's keto is the influence of the dirty keto crowd that push this eat all the butter and bacon and fatty meat you want with a pat of butter snuck in with each bite. I have read the books by these pushers and it is quite sad how they take minimal science and push what works for them to an extreme. One of those books (blanking on who) was written by a naturally skinny guy with good metabolism so I doubt he would be heavy no matter what.

Our ancestors basically ate to survive while current day culture eats for pleasure and excess. Most dirty keto proponent (and I am NOT one of them) will tell you eat as much bacon, fatty meats and butter as you want. Remember our ancestors would eat animal or vegetation to live an dnot pig out at a banquet which was more balanced. No way they would kill an animal and simply eat all the fatty bacon and go churn butter to eat with every bite. Todays human is mostly a lazy piece of shit with a slow metabolism and accumuated metabolic syndrome so suddenly diving in keto does not magically undue years of shitty eating and genetic changes.

A good clean keto can be achieved with 40-50 net carbs which includes plenty of vegetables and certain fruits. Even if you don't get into ketosis, you will still burn fat with a good balance of not cheating and exercise. Some books have shown how targeting 100 total carbs in a day will still lead to weight loss by limiting refined sugars and useless carbs. it is not that carbs are the enemy, people's choices are.

Also good science backed studies will tell you to focus on healthy fats and not eat as much bacon as you want. I love bacon but no way I am eating a whole plate full of it.

Also... this was a Chinese study where they force fed a rat a shit load of fats...what rat is built for such a diet.... force feed a rat a shit load of twinkies and you get the same thing I would bet.

As with anything in the diet world, 90% is for selling books and plans and tries to tap into the human element of laziness and looking for get skinny quick method.

Any real lifestyle change of how you eat needs to be more reasoned and balanced for the individual and not sold wholesale.

The only thing I'd point out here is that hunter gatherers typically ate not just the meat of the animal, but the fattest parts of the meat. Including the fatty organ meat.

 

[ph1l]

I agree with your second point, but not sure what that has to do with this. Hunter gatherers ate what they found. Period.

Agree with your third and fourth points, though I would argue that the fourth point is a discussion on activity, not the type of calories.

When one is overweight and inactive, the body reacts differently to food than when you are lean and mean.

Here is another take on keto.

 

[El OchoCinco]

The only thing I'd point out here is that hunter gatherers typically ate not just the meat of the animal, but the fattest parts of the meat. Including the fatty organ meat.

But it was more balanced. Today's dirty keto pushers want you to eat only the fatty stuff.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I don't really buy into the "net carb" business:

https://www.webmd.com/women/features/net-carb-debate

More than half of the calories I take in are from carbs, all of which are of the complex variety apart from a slice or two of sourdough walnut bread. I only work out twice a week, and no more than 25 minutes all in each time. Admittedly, the workouts are intense.

net carbs is a way to focus on fiber intake really and be more conscious of the quality of carbs. I tend to process carbs badly and put on weight quicker with them unchecked while most people have nice lean metabolisms or its not an issue. That is why it is not for everyone.