5 ms·

I'm down 14kg in 120 days on a keto based diet. Works brilliantly, sustainably and enjoyable. Carbs are also full of empty calories, better to eat more nutrie

I'm down 14kg in 120 days on a keto based diet. Works brilliantly, sustainably and enjoyable. Carbs are also full of empty calories, better to eat more nutrients like fat! I'm healthier because of that. The chart isn't particularly useful, but it's still interesting imo Whatever works for you of course is the best. Regrettably I've been a bit preachy about keto diets before, but understand now that some people prefer calorie counting better and it works for them, so fair enough!

sneak 14y ago
Ketogenic diets are more trouble than they're worth. There's nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  You can't say it's more trouble than it's worth because it's a sweeping generalisation, and different diets work better for different people. Calorie restricted diet I have failed at many times before. Keto was difficult for the first month but now it's a doddle. There's nothing wrong with carbohydrates either. Never said that. Carbs in moderation is a diet that most people I know seem to exist healthily and happily off. However elimination of carbohydrates is a tactic that's giving me awesome results, making me happy and more energetic. You do not need to consume carbohydrates to stay alive of be healthy.
  - analog 14y ago
    Absolutely this. Everybody's body is different and respond in different ways. You have to work out what works for you.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'll chime in with the former posters in favor of ketogenic diets. YMMV, but I personally find it much easier to stay on a ketogenic diet. Check out the Applebee's menu (fairly typical): http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_info.pdf http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_... A 12 oz NY Strip + seasonal veggies will run you about 520-540 calories. That's under half as many calories as any of the fajitas, pasta dishes, and most of the salads. It's also half as many calories as any of the sandwiches. It's bread and pasta that isn't worth it (unless you're poor and need lots of calories per dollar). The food pyramid makes people think bread is good for you, so people dramatically underestimate how many calories they take in from bread. A typical American diet might have two slices of toast at breakfast, two pieces of sandwich bread or a bagel at lunch, and a baked potato for dinner. These are simple accompaniments, not the stars of the meal, yet they add up to a staggering 700 calories daily. You could replace that with two slices of bacon at each meal and still cut your calorie intake substantially.
c1u 14y ago
Carbs are NOT "empty calories", there is no such thing.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar. That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense. (USDA takes my side: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calo...)
  - c1u 14y ago
    "calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all. A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients. That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizza is empty calories, but bread, cheese, tomatoes, meat & veggies are not? It's ridiculous.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      Yeah, sorry, a better phrase would be "energy calories without any other nutrients". Which I thought was implied. But I forget that imprecise communication works less and less.
    - a_c_s 14y ago
      No, a spoonful of refined white sugar contains 100% calories. It does not contain any minerals, vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients or antioxidants, which in the context of this discussion, is what is meant by saying it has no nutrients.
      - c1u 14y ago
        There are only 4 macronutrients (foods metabolism can run on): carbs, fat, protein, & ethanol. So if you believe protein & fat are nutrients, then you must believe carbs are as well.

sneak 14y ago

Ketogenic diets are more trouble than they're worth. There's nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates.

TomGullen 14y ago
You can't say it's more trouble than it's worth because it's a sweeping generalisation, and different diets work better for different people. Calorie restricted diet I have failed at many times before. Keto was difficult for the first month but now it's a doddle. There's nothing wrong with carbohydrates either. Never said that. Carbs in moderation is a diet that most people I know seem to exist healthily and happily off. However elimination of carbohydrates is a tactic that's giving me awesome results, making me happy and more energetic. You do not need to consume carbohydrates to stay alive of be healthy.
- analog 14y ago
  Absolutely this. Everybody's body is different and respond in different ways. You have to work out what works for you.
rayiner 14y ago
I'll chime in with the former posters in favor of ketogenic diets. YMMV, but I personally find it much easier to stay on a ketogenic diet. Check out the Applebee's menu (fairly typical): http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_info.pdf http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_... A 12 oz NY Strip + seasonal veggies will run you about 520-540 calories. That's under half as many calories as any of the fajitas, pasta dishes, and most of the salads. It's also half as many calories as any of the sandwiches. It's bread and pasta that isn't worth it (unless you're poor and need lots of calories per dollar). The food pyramid makes people think bread is good for you, so people dramatically underestimate how many calories they take in from bread. A typical American diet might have two slices of toast at breakfast, two pieces of sandwich bread or a bagel at lunch, and a baked potato for dinner. These are simple accompaniments, not the stars of the meal, yet they add up to a staggering 700 calories daily. You could replace that with two slices of bacon at each meal and still cut your calorie intake substantially.

c1u 14y ago

Carbs are NOT "empty calories", there is no such thing.

maxerickson 14y ago
The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar. That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense. (USDA takes my side: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calo...)
- c1u 14y ago
  "calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all. A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients. That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizza is empty calories, but bread, cheese, tomatoes, meat & veggies are not? It's ridiculous.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    Yeah, sorry, a better phrase would be "energy calories without any other nutrients". Which I thought was implied. But I forget that imprecise communication works less and less.
  - a_c_s 14y ago
    No, a spoonful of refined white sugar contains 100% calories. It does not contain any minerals, vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients or antioxidants, which in the context of this discussion, is what is meant by saying it has no nutrients.
    - c1u 14y ago
      There are only 4 macronutrients (foods metabolism can run on): carbs, fat, protein, & ethanol. So if you believe protein & fat are nutrients, then you must believe carbs are as well.