# Low Carb High Fat



## The Jogger (27 Aug 2014)

Is cholesterol the real devil it is made out to be or is it sugar. I have been researching the LCHF way of eating and the more I read and watch, the more I feel we have been conned by the food industry. 

This really does make sense in my view.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...big-fat-surprise-about-nutrition-9692121.html

http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf


----------



## Fab Foodie (27 Aug 2014)

The Jogger said:


> Is cholesterol the real devil it is made out to be or is it sugar. I have been researching the LCHF way of eating and the more I read and watch, the more I feel we have been conned by the food industry.
> 
> This really does make sense in my view.
> 
> ...


Can't say I'm surprised.
One thing is clear is that the rapid rise in Obesity in the UK especially childhood obesity correlates very well with the rise of the low fat/high carb diet in the early 80s ... can't say I ever thought this a good idea.
(OK Correlation is not causation).

Moderation in all things, low processed foods, high veg seems a good way forward to me.


----------



## Fab Foodie (27 Aug 2014)

Feck! I've just agreed with The Jogger!
Except ... it's wasn't the Food Industry wot did it, it was the medical/health/diet/fad industry. My lot just provide the means ....


----------



## The Jogger (27 Aug 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> *Feck! I've just agreed with The Jogger!*
> Except ... it's wasn't the Food Industry wot did it, it was the medical/health/diet/fad industry. My lot just provide the means ....



Come on FF you know it's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last


----------



## Fab Foodie (27 Aug 2014)

The Jogger said:


> Come on FF you know it's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last


Damn ... you got me!


----------



## Arsen Gere (28 Aug 2014)

There was an interesting Horizon programme by Dr.Michael Mosley on this subject and meat. It looks like processed meats are the real bad things, lovely stuff like bacon and sausages. There was another study which picked up on L-carnitine (found in meat) which was based on giving people high doses and it looks like the bacteria in the gut convert it to stuff that causes heart attack's and strokes. It is interesting to see that some of the research is shifting to the bacteria that live on us and in us. They are thought to be responsible for the health giving benefits of oats too. I got a nutrition expert who had been working with the elite triathlon team to come and do a talk. He had adjusted some diets to include more fats to enable them to complete races without running out of energy.


----------



## gurninman (28 Aug 2014)

I live on a low carb, high fat diet
I'm diabetic and was 127Kg at the beginning of July.I'm now 111Kg, feel fitter than I have for years and never feel hungry.My blood sugars are spot-on, so much so that I don't need meds any more.
HDL/LDL ratio much improved, too.All while eating butter freely, pork chops with crispy fat on, full cream milk and loads of eggs and cheese.I was a real carb addict, could eat mounds of rice /pasta/spuds but now only really miss fresh bread on occasion.A lot of recent studies have shown that saturated fat isn't the big evil we've been taught.Rather, eating a low carb diet really precludes processed food - so no money to be made from big business.No wonder we don't see it pushed more heavily, eh ?


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2014)

gurninman said:


> Rather, eating a low carb diet really precludes processed food - so no money to be made from big business.No wonder we don't see it pushed more heavily, eh ?



You mean - other than the millions of books and food products sold under the lable of "Atkins"? I've lost count of the number of places I've seen "low-carb" ready meals available recently.

So far as I can tell, the real issue is that people eat more than they need - it's elementary physics. There are a heck of a lot of reasons why that happens, which is a fascinating topic touching on psychology, biology, marketing and chemistry. With the possible exception of the fat-sugar combo no individual food or ingredient is intrinsically bad, but it's all very available, expectations of portion sizes have increased, and the food (sorry FF) and marketing industries have got very good at persuading us to consume it.


----------



## yello (28 Aug 2014)

Not sure what it has to do with "physics", elementary or otherwise.

Type the name 'Robert Lustig' into the search bar and read what he has to say about sugar. Interresting stuff.

Carb itself is not, IMHO, the devil. It's the type (fast v slow sugars) AND the amount/balance of it in our diets. We're probably eating more carb percentage wise in our diets than 20/30 years ago, both knowingly and unknowingly. There's sugar in some processed foods that you'd not expect, nor see as necessary.

I think there's a great deal more to be learnt about diet and nutrition. I believe it to be both more complex and more personal than we're popularly lead to believe. Suffice it to say, I believe the simplistic 'calories in, calories out' mantra to be misleading.


----------



## Flying Dodo (28 Aug 2014)

I've been on a low carb/high fat (a.k.a ketogenic) lifestyle for 18 months now. Prior to starting this, I weighed around 81 kg (I'm 6ft) and it had taken me a couple of years to get down to that from around 87Kg. Virtually eliminating carbs (especially sugar) meant I lost 8 kg in 8 weeks, and after about 3 months, my weight stabilised at 70 kg, and my beer gut, which previously I couldn't get rid off, has gone.

I only switched after doing a lot of research and reading up about it, including some very technical books by Drs. Phinney & Volek which went into a lot of detail about the changes the body undergoes on a low carb lifestyle, and also about how much the food industry had pumped out the incorrect message in the last 40 years or more, by reducing fat and compensating for the resultant lack of taste by bulking up with various forms of sugar. There's also the naive view that eating fat means that fat is then deposited around the body and also raises cholesterol levels, which isn't the case. Sadly the UK medical industry is quite a few years behind the US, as in the States they're increasingly aware that carbs are the problem, not fat. In fact the diet was first used 100 years ago to help control epilepsy, but it's only recently that they've understood the changes in the brain chemistry as to why it reduces or stops seizures.

I can quite easily do a 100 mile ride at 16 mph and not need anything to eat anything at all, as burning fat is all the body needs. You don't, and in fact can't bonk, as you're not needing to rely on limited supplies of glycogen, which for anyone eating carbs means they have to keep eating. So that also means no more sticky gels when on the bike. And the fact I get to cook and eat with butter & cream is nice as well.


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2014)

yello said:


> Not sure what it has to do with "physics", elementary or otherwise.
> 
> Type the name 'Robert Lustig' into the search bar and read what he has to say about sugar. Interresting stuff.


The wiki-entry reads like yet another person who's over-simplified a very complex subject. Yes, corn syrup is bad, but not because it's intrinsically dangerous or evil - simply because it's used as a very cheap way to make crap food more palatable, which incidentally also makes it highly calorific.

The physics stuff is simple - when I was doing physics energy was part of physics (it may have changed since the 1980s, but I doubt it). There's a very simple and necessary relationship between the amount of energy you take in from your diet and the amount of energy you expend in living. If you take in (i.e. digest) more than you expend you retain it in the form of fat. That's the law of the conservation of energy in action.

Where it gets interesting is in the biochemistry that means that to a certain extent we can regulate our responses to inputs, by upping our energy expenditure (strictly speaking, conversion into kinetic energy for the real pedants), by digesting less (I'm sure most of us are familiar with the temporary effect on the bowels of eating a very oily meal) or by converting stored energy reserves. Add in the psychology of marketing and ingrained behaviours, both animal/genetic (I must eat when food is available!) and learned (Think of the starving children in Africa!), and you get to this:



> I think there's a great deal more to be learnt about diet and nutrition. I believe it to be both more complex and more personal than we're popularly lead to believe. Suffice it to say, I believe the simplistic 'calories in, calories out' mantra to be misleading.


----------



## yello (28 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> That's the law of the conservation of energy in action.



Whilst I don't question your knowledge of physics, can you say in all honesty say that you know it applies to biological systems? Are laws of thermodynamics and closed systems applicable in biochemistry?

The reason I mentioned Lustig was because he is has perhaps the most extreme anti-sugar views I have encounterted in all of the reading I have down. I wouldn't judge him on a wiki entry alone!


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2014)

Feel free to question my knowledge of physics - I'm no expert. But the point about physical laws is that they always apply. (Insert your own caveat about atomic-level scales and Einstein). I can see no reason why the closed system known online as "srw" should be able to get break the laws of physics. If I eat three filled rolls and two bits of bread pudding, then have a full cooked breakfast and a pint of beer (plus, perhaps, one or two more), while only burning 3000 calories in cycling, it's quite likely I'll convert some of the excess calories to stored energy - aka fat or muscle.


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> You mean - other than the millions of books and food products sold under the lable of "Atkins"? I've lost count of the number of places I've seen "low-carb" ready meals available recently.
> 
> So far as I can tell, the real issue is that people eat more than they need - it's elementary physics. There are a heck of a lot of reasons why that happens, which is a fascinating topic touching on psychology, biology, marketing and chemistry. With the possible exception of the fat-sugar combo no individual food or ingredient is intrinsically bad, but it's all very available, expectations of portion sizes have increased, and the food (sorry FF) and marketing industries have got very good at persuading us to consume it.


Agreed on all points!


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> Feel free to question my knowledge of physics - I'm no expert. But the point about physical laws is that they always apply. (Insert your own caveat about atomic-level scales and Einstein). I can see no reason why the closed system known online as "srw" should be able to get break the laws of physics. If I eat three filled rolls and two bits of bread pudding, then have a full cooked breakfast and a pint of beer (plus, perhaps, one or two more), while only burning 3000 calories in cycling, it's quite likely I'll convert some of the excess calories to stored energy - aka fat or muscle.


Correct, and some recent work shows that it doesn't matter when or how you eat those calories either.
Fat people eat too much for the energy they consume. That's the bottom line. I eat and drink too much, that's why I'm fat. I have a daughter who exercises too much and eats too little. It's called anorexia. She looks like a skeleton. Anybody can use this technique to loose weight. That's the bottom line.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Aug 2014)

Theres bad carbs and good carbs. The less processed carp the better.


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2014)

Carp's no good unless it's processed - far too many bones.


----------



## theclaud (28 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> Carp's no good unless it's processed - far too many bones.


You can keep your _quenelles de brochet_ as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Aug 2014)

theclaud said:


> You can keep your _quenelles de brochet_ as far as I am concerned.


If he's giving some away, I'll try some ....


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> But the point about physical laws is that they always apply.



This is exactly the point I'd question! I've often read it as an argument underpinning 'calories in, calories out'. I think it's applied too simplistically. Sure, at a high level, it holds true and is a useful rule of thumb - just as '5 a day' fruit and veg is. But I think the truth is more complex. 

I have several questions on the subject (and I won't bore people here with them!) but I think a more complex model will be developed in the future; one that acknowledges biochemical feedbacks within our system and says that the notion of a calorie, as it is currently understood in physics, is not an overly useful one - without significant caveat - in describing the human digestive system.

In short, we'll be less dismissive over the causes of obesity.


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Aug 2014)

theclaud said:


> You can keep your _quenelles de brochet_ as far as I am concerned.


 
Four quenelles


----------



## srw (29 Aug 2014)

yello said:


> I have several questions on the subject (and I won't bore people here with them!) but I think a more complex model will be developed in the future; one that acknowledges biochemical feedbacks within our system and says that the notion of a calorie, as it is currently understood in physics, is not an overly useful one - without significant caveat - in describing the human digestive system..



I think I have already acknowledged the biochemical feedbacks - I've been very careful to talk about food _digested_ rather than food _eaten_, and did also mention some of what the body can do to regulate itself. But in the absence of a calorimeter able to take readings from the gut and bowel, or the willingess to measure the calorific value of food excreted or egested, or indeed the ability to measure accurately energy converted from stored-in-food to kinetic or heat, the crude estimates of food eaten and exercise taken will have to do.

You simply can't ignore the laws of physics. You can acknowledge that psychology, biology and biochemistry are important (and I think I have) in determining weight gain and weight loss, but physics is always at the heart.


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> the crude estimates of food eaten and exercise taken will have to do.



Indeed. This is my point. It is crude, albeit useful at a high level. You touch on some of the very issues I have questions about, and you clearly share similar questions. However, this level of awareness is not, ime, common and over simplification has given rise to the dismissiveness I referred to.



> but physics is always at the heart.



Maybe so, though I personally have reservations. I feel the model it presents over simplifies the reality. I don't think it's helpful (in fact, I feel it's the cause of demoralisation for some) in it's popularly understood form.


----------



## Rob3rt (29 Aug 2014)

What I find most interesting about this thread is the propensity in which certain members of this forum are drawn in by "alternative" diets. It's always the same people, so may I ask, what is it that drives such people to seek out these diets?


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Aug 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> What I find most interesting about this thread is the propensity in which certain members of this forum are drawn in by "alternative" diets. It's always the same people, so may I ask, what is it that drives such people to seek out these diets?


I think it's usually the promise of a 'quick fix' or a means of achieving ones aims in a more appealing manner.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> I think I have already acknowledged the biochemical feedbacks - I've been very careful to talk about food _digested_ rather than food _eaten_, and did also mention some of what the body can do to regulate itself. But in the absence of a calorimeter able to take readings from the gut and bowel, or the willingess to measure the calorific value of food excreted or egested, or indeed the ability to measure accurately energy converted from stored-in-food to kinetic or heat, the crude estimates of food eaten and exercise taken will have to do.
> 
> You simply can't ignore the laws of physics. You can acknowledge that psychology, biology and biochemistry are important (and I think I have) in determining weight gain and weight loss, but physics is always at the heart.


I think in the broad scheme of things you're correct. You certainly can't change the laws of physics, something IIRC Atkins tried to do. And it's important to talk about food that's digested rather than eaten as under different circumstances our digestion will absorb nutrients differently. However it's still a calories in/out at the end of the day, I can't see there is any other way around this.

I think it get's fuzzier when we take into account our bodies response to certain foods or eating patterns - the feeling of satiety for example can have a profound effect on our desire to eat - our food choices however can influence this and certain 'diets' possibly work in that way. 
There is also the effect of constantly being surrounded by foods(one of my biggest issues!) or the smell of foods which trigger hunger cravings. Add-in the food choices we make, the increased role of eating in social situations and a bizziliion other lifestyle factors it's no surprise that intake control is difficult. 

The key to losing weight unfortunately is more a mental challenge than simply a physical one. It's about adjusting lifestyles, eating habits, refusal,self control. Fad/Diets are simply a prop for exerting some kind of control in an acceptable way.


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2014)

To be clear, I'm neither a believer nor proponent for any particular diet. I eat moderately and across the range, avoiding processed foods and over indulgence in any one thing. I do love a pastry or two though!

I am however interested in the subject of nutrition and aware of differing opinions. I am also very interested in the projection of ideas (scientific or otherwise) to the general public. I understand the need to simplify at times, and I am also aware of agendas behind the promotion of any idea.


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> And it's important to talk about food that's digested rather than eaten as under different circumstances our digestion will absorb nutrients differently.



Exactly my thinking. Further, I think a 'calorie' is variable. Our systems do not always use/store the full value; because of bio feedback, digestive process and excrement. Indeed, srw touched on this.

An issue for me is not with the science per se, but the simplification and presentation of it.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Aug 2014)

yello said:


> Exactly my thinking. Further, I think a 'calorie' is variable. Our systems do not always use/store the full value; because of bio feedback, digestive process and excrement. Indeed, srw touched on this.
> 
> An issue for me is not with the science per se, but the simplification and presentation of it.


As far as the body is concerned a calorie INGESTED is a calorie. However in terms of food this is not exactly the case. The calorific value of a food is a simple chemical measurement which does not mean that your body will extract that many when you eat the product ... however in most real-world cases it's a damn close approximation.


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> As far as the body is concerned a calorie INGESTED is a calorie.



With the caveat mentioned upstream that the measurement of that calorie is not accurate.

I recall reading, maybe even on here, that the calorific content displayed on the packing of most foodstuffs is an estimate based on the previously measured values of the foodstuff's components.

Not that I'd expect otherwise in truth.


----------



## The Jogger (29 Aug 2014)

I think the LCHF is different from the Atkins in that the Atkins diet was more protein and the LCHF is majority of fat as a source of energy. LCHF isn't necessarily about losing weight although it certainly looks like it is a benefit to the way of eating but about changing peoples views on eating fat and using it up as energy as opposed to eating too many carbs and letting it store as fat around your organs.


----------



## Rob3rt (29 Aug 2014)

User13710 said:


> It's the science bit, innit. We're all conditioned now to believe that science has all the answers.



Can you clarify what you mean?


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Aug 2014)

yello said:


> With the caveat mentioned upstream that the measurement of that calorie is not accurate.
> 
> I recall reading, maybe even on here, that the calorific content displayed on the packing of most foodstuffs is an estimate based on the previously measured values of the foodstuff's components.
> 
> Not that I'd expect otherwise in truth.


It's actually more than good enough.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Aug 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> What I find most interesting about this thread is the propensity in which certain members of this forum are drawn in by "alternative" diets. It's always the same people, so may I ask, what is it that drives such people to seek out these diets?




You know (as srw points out) calories burnt at a greater rate than consumed will lead to weight loss. Most will focus on restricting calories but ignore the calories burned side. Calories burned side being more of an effort for people.

I see it time and time again with my mother and sister.


----------



## smokeysmoo (30 Aug 2014)

The Jogger said:


> I have been researching the LCHF way of eating


@NotthatJasonKenny has been having good results following a LCHF eating path.

He doesn't check in here very often anymore but I'll PM him via FB and let him know about this thread, he may want to pass on his thoughts.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

I was alerted to this way of eating (it isn't a diet as that implies a start date and a finish date as in, I'm on a diet...) when I saw Tim Noakes a South African professor and runner talking about it in a video.

I started it in April after doing a lot of research and have lost 2 stone and quite frankly have never felt better.

My Sunday bike rides have been so much more fun, firstly from being lighter but also from having so much more energy. The first ride after a few months on this plan I breakfasted on a cheese omelette and went out and got 32 personal bests on Strava (see for yourself!)

Be wary of detractors who call it a faddy diet, there is so much truth in the statement that we can put a man on the moon but we can't agree on what we should and shouldn't eat.

Also, it isn't for everyone, we have to acknowledge that we all react differently to things. If you eat loads of carbs and are slim then you can cope with that diet and assuming you are healthy on the inside then great, carry on.

If however you eat carbs and are either carrying too much weight or struggle to keep to a weight, give it a try.

There is a belief that insulin resistance is the cause of most men getting bellies! As we eat carbs, the sugar in those foods causes insulin to be released which is your fat storing hormone. If you eat a lot of carbs then in some people your body can't cope and we are now calling this diabetes...which I believe is the true reason for the epidemic we can see at the moment.

My grandmother and my father all had or have diabetes but my father has been eating like this for a few months and is no longer testing as diabetic and with his doctors agreement is off his meds.

I don't post here often so if you disagree do a bit of research, you may be surprised what you find.


----------



## brand (30 Aug 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> I've been on a low carb/high fat (a.k.a ketogenic) lifestyle for 18 months now. Prior to starting this, I weighed around 81 kg (I'm 6ft) and it had taken me a couple of years to get down to that from around 87Kg. Virtually eliminating carbs (especially sugar) meant I lost 8 kg in 8 weeks, and after about 3 months, my weight stabilised at 70 kg, and my beer gut, which previously I couldn't get rid off, has gone.
> 
> I only switched after doing a lot of research and reading up about it, including some very technical books by Drs. Phinney & Volek which went into a lot of detail about the changes the body undergoes on a low carb lifestyle, and also about how much the food industry had pumped out the incorrect message in the last 40 years or more, by reducing fat and compensating for the resultant lack of taste by bulking up with various forms of sugar. There's also the naive view that eating fat means that fat is then deposited around the body and also raises cholesterol levels, which isn't the case. Sadly the UK medical industry is quite a few years behind the US, as in the States they're increasingly aware that carbs are the problem, not fat. In fact the diet was first used 100 years ago to help control epilepsy, but it's only recently that they've understood the changes in the brain chemistry as to why it reduces or stops seizures.
> 
> I can quite easily do a 100 mile ride at 16 mph and not need anything to eat anything at all, as burning fat is all the body needs. You don't, and in fact can't bonk, as you're not needing to rely on limited supplies of glycogen, which for anyone eating carbs means they have to keep eating. So that also means no more sticky gels when on the bike. And the fact I get to cook and eat with butter & cream is nice as well.


Carbs are good for you fat is bad for you! Okay it is simplistic but to suggest that eating a high fat diet is good is just as simplistic. Never has the food industry suggested eating a high carb diet because you are suggesting simple carbohydrates not complex as in potatoes or pasta (I love pasta) etc. Further more Fruit and vegetables contain simple carbohydrates. But with all the extras such as fibre etc they do not cause obesity. My favourite experiment was done on children. They were given 250ml of pure orange juice with breakfast. The next part of there experiment they were given the 6 oranges instead then have there normal breakfast. None managed it some were actually sick. Also why would a high complex carbohydrates diet be tasteless. A pasta sauce is definitely not tasteless. If a simple carbohydrate diet was tasteless why do people eat so much sugar? Because they like it. Will no doubt get back but have to walk my neighbours dogs and collect the 5 eggs from his chickens.... I may never empty my bowels again!!


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

http://www.health24.com/Diet-and-nutrition/Nutrition-basics/Tim-Noakes-on-carbohydrates-20120721

Read this in full.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> There is a belief that insulin resistance is the cause of most men getting bellies! As we eat carbs, the sugar in those foods causes insulin to be released which is your fat storing hormone. If you eat a lot of carbs then in some people your body can't cope and we are now calling this diabetes...which I believe is the true reason for the epidemic we can see at the moment.



Rubbish carbs, not good carbs.

And man got to the moon by making the US almost bankrupt.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

No, the carbohydrate resistance I am talking about applies to all carbs, I limit myself to 20-30 grams of good carbs per day, mainly from vegetables.


----------



## brand (30 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> Carp's no good unless it's processed - far too many bones.



Tell that to the Polish! Cought regularly netting lakes for Carp! Minging fish!


----------



## 400bhp (30 Aug 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> No, the carbohydrate resistance I am talking about applies to all carbs, I limit myself to 20-30 grams of good carbs per day, mainly from vegetables.



Well, sorry but that could apply to any food. To dismiss all carbs because they are relatively fat inducing and create insulin is wrong..


----------



## Flying Dodo (30 Aug 2014)

Ingesting carbohydrates automatically stimulates the pancreas to release insulin. Where this causes a particular issue is for those people who are prone to be type-2 diabetics.

Of course a human can survive and thrive perfectly well without any carbs at all.


----------



## brand (30 Aug 2014)

It is insulin spikes that are the problem. Eating processed carbohydrates in large amounts in one sitting. I wonder if that includes beer and cider? I best go find out!


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (30 Aug 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Ingesting carbohydrates automatically stimulates the pancreas to release insulin. Where this causes a particular issue is for those people who are prone to be type-2 diabetics.
> 
> Of course a human can survive and thrive perfectly well without any carbs at all.




What he said.


----------



## The Jogger (31 Aug 2014)

Well I am now in ketosis , this could be an interesting journey.


----------



## brand (31 Aug 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Ingesting carbohydrates automatically stimulates the pancreas to release insulin. Where this causes a particular issue is for those people who are prone to be type-2 diabetics.
> 
> Of course a human can survive and thrive perfectly well without any carbs at all.


What a load of rubbish. No one at all is "prone to be type-2 diabetics" some people are more likely to get diabetes if they are eating a poorly balanced diet HIGH in sugar. Humans can do without virtually any fat. Humans in the past some lived on carbs alone. There are humans now in Africa whose diet is Maize......and maize and sod all else. What did British peasant live on in the past? Steak and kidney pie Chips peas and gravy??
What did Irish peasants live on? The latter? Or just boiled potatoes? All these weirdo diets keep coming up. I wonder what wacky diet will be the next flavour of the month. Balanced diet and nothing else? You are welcome to your early heart attack. You have the right to go on daft diet you haven't got the right to encourage others.


----------



## brand (31 Aug 2014)

brand said:


> It is insulin spikes that are the problem. Eating processed carbohydrates in large amounts in one sitting. I wonder if that includes beer and cider? I best go find out!


The experiment was inclusive I will have do it again today.


----------



## brand (31 Aug 2014)

PS exercise will allow you get away with a poor diet. Exercise will allow you to get away with murder in terms of a poor diet.


----------



## Flying Dodo (31 Aug 2014)

brand said:


> What a load of rubbish. No one at all is "prone to be type-2 diabetics" some people are more likely to get diabetes if they are eating a poorly balanced diet HIGH in sugar. Humans can do without virtually any fat. Humans in the past some lived on carbs alone. There are humans now in Africa whose diet is Maize......and maize and sod all else. What did British peasant live on in the past? Steak and kidney pie Chips peas and gravy??
> What did Irish peasants live on? The latter? Or just boiled potatoes? All these weirdo diets keep coming up. I wonder what wacky diet will be the next flavour of the month. Balanced diet and nothing else? You are welcome to your early heart attack. You have the right to go on daft diet you haven't got the right to encourage others.



Yes humans can exist purely on carbs. But if you think further back in history to a time before the invention of pie & chips, you'd find humans had to live on fat. 

If you bothered to actually do some research instead of spouting out insults, you'll discover that my likelihood of having a having a heart attack on a low carb high fat lifestyle is reduced not increased. Google "Inuit paradox" as your starter for 10.

You're falling into the trap of thinking that fat I ingest is deposited on my arteries. It isn't. And I use the word lifestyle, as I have done previously, because it's not a diet.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Aug 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Yes humans can exist purely on carbs. But if you think further back in history to a time before the invention of pie & chips, you'd find humans had to live on fat.
> 
> If you bothered to actually do some research instead of spouting out insults, you'll discover that my likelihood of having a having a heart attack on a low carb high fat lifestyle is reduced not increased. Google "Inuit paradox" as your starter for 10.
> 
> You're falling into the trap of thinking that fat I ingest is deposited on my arteries. It isn't. And I use the word lifestyle, as I have done previously, because it's not a diet.



Life expectancy was c. 40 years a long time ago so I wouldn't be basing much credence on that.

Life expectancy of the inuit population is relatively low. I'd be sceptical of extrapolaing from such findings of that paradox onto overall health.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (31 Aug 2014)

brand said:


> What a load of rubbish. No one at all is "prone to be type-2 diabetics" some people are more likely to get diabetes if they are eating a poorly balanced diet HIGH in sugar. Humans can do without virtually any fat. Humans in the past some lived on carbs alone. There are humans now in Africa whose diet is Maize......and maize and sod all else. What did British peasant live on in the past? Steak and kidney pie Chips peas and gravy??
> What did Irish peasants live on? The latter? Or just boiled potatoes? All these weirdo diets keep coming up. I wonder what wacky diet will be the next flavour of the month. Balanced diet and nothing else? You are welcome to your early heart attack. You have the right to go on daft diet you haven't got the right to encourage others.



Err...wrong.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (31 Aug 2014)

Read this and then tell me which bits are wrong and what qualifications you have which back up your beliefs.

http://www.health24.com/Diet-and-nutrition/Nutrition-basics/Tim-Noakes-on-carbohydrates-20120721


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

400bhp said:


> Life expectancy was c. 40 years a long time ago so I wouldn't be basing much credence on that.


Bit of a vague, sweeping assumption. We now have social mechanisms for looking after the elderly. In fact it's only been in the last 30,000 years or so that longevity has increased significantly, which ties in with a trend for populations to start keeping the elderly in the community, as evidenced by archaeological remains, rather than being nomadic hunter/gathers. Prehistoric humans realised that by looking after their grandparents, they could pass on their knowledge & skills and build on the social cohesion of their settlements. Plus of course in the last few hundred years there's been the enormous improvement in medical care.



400bhp said:


> Life expectancy of the inuit population is relatively low. I'd be sceptical of extrapolaing from such findings of that paradox onto overall health.



There's only limited data available anyway, as they never used to log dates of birth, and traditionally Inuit would have suffered high mortality due to disease & parasites. Of course many Inuit now don't follow a LCHF lifestyle, due to western influences, and a lot of the difference in rates of mortality is due to smoking and self inflicted injuries.[/QUOTE]


----------



## srw (1 Sep 2014)

@Flying Dodo - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#Nutrition) reports that the Inuit diet _isn't_ that low in carbs. Via several references, it has a calorie balance of 50-30-20 fat/carb/protein. That compares with the American recommendation of about 30-50-20 (http://www.livestrong.com/article/388545-macronutrient-ratios-in-a-diet/) - not all that different.

It also reports a similar heart attack likelihood and a higher stroke likelihood to the rest of the population. Basing a modern diet on the historical practices of an isolated group who had a very specific lifestyle and quite possibly had developed a different set of gut flora supporting that lifestyle and diet doesn't seem entirely coherent.


----------



## Drago (1 Sep 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> Err...wrong.


Indeed he is. There are certain genetic conditions that make people more prone.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> You have the right to go on daft diet you haven't got the right to encourage others.



It's rather ironic that you raise the issue of daft diets, when you consider how things change over the years. Consider the humble egg. Fifty years ago, they were deemed to be healthy - "Go to work on an egg". Then around the turn of the century, "evidence" popped up showing they were unhealthy, and raised cholesterol levels. But now they're healthy again and don't raise cholesterol , and so you're encouraged to eat them again.

Another example is the "Five a day" campaign, launched in 2003. Earlier this year, they started back-pedalling on the inclusion of fruit juice, highlighting that you shouldn't drink too much.

So I wouldn't put too much stock in what you're being told is currently healthy.


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> Read this and then tell me which bits are wrong and what qualifications you have which back up your beliefs.
> 
> http://www.health24.com/Diet-and-nutrition/Nutrition-basics/Tim-Noakes-on-carbohydrates-20120721


There is a vast counter view to yours, made up of the vast majority of doctors. That is the only qualifications I need.
Herbivore
Insectivore
Carnivore
Omnivore
Fatavore .....yeah right
Human = OMNIVORE


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> @Flying Dodo - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#Nutrition) reports that the Inuit diet _isn't_ that low in carbs. Via several references, it has a calorie balance of 50-30-20 fat/carb/protein. That compares with the American recommendation of about 30-50-20 (http://www.livestrong.com/article/388545-macronutrient-ratios-in-a-diet/) - not all that different.
> 
> It also reports a similar heart attack likelihood and a higher stroke likelihood to the rest of the population. Basing a modern diet on the historical practices of an isolated group who had a very specific lifestyle and quite possibly had developed a different set of gut flora supporting that lifestyle and diet doesn't seem entirely coherent.


Too many carbs then!


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> It's rather ironic that you raise the issue of daft diets, when you consider how things change over the years. Consider the humble egg. Fifty years ago, they were deemed to be healthy - "Go to work on an egg". Then around the turn of the century, "evidence" popped up showing they were unhealthy, and raised cholesterol levels. But now they're healthy again and don't raise cholesterol , and so you're encouraged to eat them again.
> 
> Another example is the "Five a day" campaign, launched in 2003. Earlier this year, they started back-pedalling on the inclusion of fruit juice, highlighting that you shouldn't drink too much.
> 
> So I wouldn't put too much stock in what you're being told is currently healthy.


Chickens receive a different diet nowadays and I have never read anything about drinking fruit juice is good for you. It is basically pure sugar (fructose). 5 a day diet advise hasn't changed. Other than to say it could be worth increasing it.


----------



## srw (1 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> It's rather ironic that you raise the issue of daft diets, when you consider how things change over the years. Consider the humble egg. Fifty years ago, they were deemed to be healthy - "Go to work on an egg". Then around the turn of the century, "evidence" popped up showing they were unhealthy, and raised cholesterol levels. But now they're healthy again and don't raise cholesterol , and so you're encouraged to eat them again.
> 
> Another example is the "Five a day" campaign, launched in 2003. Earlier this year, they started back-pedalling on the inclusion of fruit juice, highlighting that you shouldn't drink too much.
> 
> So I wouldn't put too much stock in what you're being told is currently healthy.


I'm not sure either are good examples to support an extreme diet. The changing status of eggs is an example of science in action - operating on a small part of a diet. I believe eggs _do _raise cholesterol, but science's understanding of the impacts of different kinds of cholesterol has changed.

The fruit juice thing isn't really new - there's only ever been a maximum of one portion of fruit juice in the "five a day", which is itself a significant dumbing down of some reasonably speculative science. The recent publicity reminds us that fruit juice is sugar water with a few extra nutrients.



Flying Dodo said:


> Too many carbs then!


 Errrmmm - I'm responding to your citation of the Inuit to support your chosen lifestyle. Feel free to try whatever diet you like - but accept that if it's novel others will question it!


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Indeed he is. There are certain genetic conditions that make people more prone.


So maybe they shouldn't be on the lard diet?


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

By the way in what form does the fat in your diet take?
And how often do you evacuate your bowls?


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

Oh my god you are suggesting I give up Brussel sprouts!


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

I think your user name may be appropriate for ketogenic diet and it is diet not a life style.


----------



## velovoice (1 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> No one at all is "prone to be type-2 diabetics"


"What a load of rubbish" - back atcha. 

I for one was born with carbohydrate intolerance. Yes, born with it. Yes, totally intolerant. To ALL carbs. Coupled to that is a tendency to hyper-insulinism... which is related to hypoglycemia... which is related to -- guess what -- type 2 diabetes.

You are talking absolute rot and don't even know it because you're so convinced your opinions are correct, you haven't -- and, I'll bet, WON'T -- bother to research the facts.
Excuse me, my temper got away with me. I just can't tolerate the intolerance (irony intended) and judgemental attitude you are showing here. I have lived 45+ 42 years of varying degrees of *hell *due to carbohydrate intolerance, so this is really really making me angry. 

**ETA to deduct the 3 years of BLISS attributable entirely to a LCHF lifestyle.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> There is to counter view to yours, made up of the vast majority of doctors. That the only qualifications I need.
> Herbivore
> Insectivore
> Carnivore
> ...





brand said:


> Chickens receive a different diet nowadays and I have never read anything about drinking fruit juice is good for you. It is basically pure sugar (fructose). 5 a day diet advise hasn't changed. Other than to say it could be worth increasing it.



Yes chickens' diet has changed. However that's not what has changed medical evidence to revert to saying eating eggs is OK. What has changed is the realisation that even though eggs are high in cholesterol, it doesn't actually affect cholesterol levels in the blood. 15 years ago they were saying the opposite, and you don't seem to appreciate the changing face of advice.

Just because you don't have any knowledge of something doesn't actually mean it's not true. The 5 a day campaign has always included fruit juice - attached is one of the original DEFRA publications from 2003. For example, Innocent Smoothies have always advertised that 250 ml of their drinks counts as 2 of the 5-a-day.

And this year, as well as highlighting that really it should be more than 5 a day, but that it should be more vegetables rather than fruit due to the higher sugar content, so again the advice message is changing, and yet you say you'll agree with the majority of doctors. Do you mean the majority of doctors now, or 15 years ago, or 5 years in the future?

The whole point is that science is always playing catch up and bringing out "corrections" to previous truths. Here in the UK we're a few years behind the USA as in the States they're far more aware that it's carbs and especially sugar that is the main driver for obesity in the last 50+ years. 

As I've previously said, the fat I eat doesn't get deposited on my arteries, as it's being used for fuel, as my body is keto-adapted to use fat rather than the more inefficient carbohydrates.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> By the way in what form does the fat in your diet take?
> And how often do you evacuate your bowls?



Normal meats, cheese, cream, butter. Whatever takes my fancy. For example on Saturday I had strawberries and cream for breakfast, then went shopping and cycled a few more miles with 30 kg of shopping. Then I went out & did some more cycling before coming back to spend a few hours working on bikes. Had a couple of handfuls of peanuts around 3 pm, and then about 6pm pan fried some chicken fillets with chillies, which I then ate with some vegetables smothered in molten cheese. Then I had some blueberries with cream.

I evacuate my bowels normally once a day, occasionally twice, but perhaps once or twice a week it might go to a second day between movements. There's far less waste material, as the body isn't being bulked up with stuff it can't fully use. So less toilet paper is used as well.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> Errrmmm - I'm responding to your citation of the Inuit to support your chosen lifestyle. Feel free to try whatever diet you like - but accept that if it's novel others will question it!



I was in fact refuting brand's assertion that a high fat lifestyle causes heart attacks, and the Inuit paradox is that it doesn't.


----------



## 400bhp (1 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Bit of a vague, sweeping assumption.



Well of course. There's nothing to be gained writing a thesis on here apart from willy waving.


----------



## The Jogger (1 Sep 2014)

Yesterday I weighed myself on scales down at the local gym that read body fat, fat percentage etc etc. It will be interesting to see the results in maybe two or three weeks to see if my fat percentage has gone up or down. I really had an open mind on this but from what I've read and seen I am certainly leaning towards the LCHF argument, so we'll see,


----------



## srw (1 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> I was in fact refuting brand's assertion that a high fat lifestyle causes heart attacks, and the Inuit paradox is that it doesn't.


OK - my misunderstanding. 

But given the 50-30-20 ratio of the Inuit diet, and the 30-50-20 ratio of a "recommended" diet, isn't a more likely explanation for the apparent paradox that the 50-30-20 ratio is rather more like the *typical* diet than doctors would like? That wouldn't explain the preponderance of strokes, but there will be other micro-nutrient differences; I suspect the Inuit diet is very high insalt, for instance. 

Out of interest, what does the HFLC actually look like - is LC as in as close to zero as possible?


----------



## The Jogger (1 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> OK - my misunderstanding.
> 
> But given the 50-30-20 ratio of the Inuit diet, and the 30-50-20 ratio of a "recommended" diet, isn't a more likely explanation for the apparent paradox that the 50-30-20 ratio is rather more like the *typical* diet than doctors would like? That wouldn't explain the preponderance of strokes, but there will be other micro-nutrient differences; I suspect the Inuit diet is very high insalt, for instance.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Jogger (1 Sep 2014)

Low carb for me is under 50 grams of carbs a day, I try and keep it well under the 50. I try and get more fat than protein but am not too bothered about the exact percentages, which is what makes this way of eating easy to do. It's not weighing and measuring, it's more common sense and reading the odd label.

Not sure what happened there.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> OK - my misunderstanding.
> 
> But given the 50-30-20 ratio of the Inuit diet, and the 30-50-20 ratio of a "recommended" diet, isn't a more likely explanation for the apparent paradox that the 50-30-20 ratio is rather more like the *typical* diet than doctors would like? That wouldn't explain the preponderance of strokes, but there will be other micro-nutrient differences; I suspect the Inuit diet is very high insalt, for instance.
> 
> Out of interest, what does the HFLC actually look like - is LC as in as close to zero as possible?



A traditional Inuit diet would have been 15% protein, 80+% fat, with under 5% carbohydrate (and that only coming from glycogen taken directly from eating seal & polar bear meat).

Salt is an interesting one. With HFLC, one of the many changes in the way the body functions is how it handles salt, in that the kidneys switch to removing more sodium than when burning carbohydrate. This means you have to actually add salt to things to avoid becoming light headed, fatigue or suffering from constipation.

Once you've become keto-adapted to run on fat (which takes up to 8 weeks), it is important to restrict carbs, as too high an intake takes you out of ketosis and back onto the treadmill of running on carbs. I've found by trial & error I can go up to around 100g per day of carbs before reaching the tipping point, but others will have lower levels. I'd be happy with lower intake or zero, but I enjoy the taste of things like strawberries (with cream). Generally though I stick to no more than 60g per day.


----------



## srw (1 Sep 2014)

Doing the sums (as I'm typing), using as a reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy

50g of carbs, at 4 calories per gram, equates to about 200 carbohydrate calories. I'm assuming here that with all the faff of sticking to a very strict diet you're both aware of the exact composition of food, rather than using "50g of carbs" as a shorthand for "50g of food containing carbs".

At a rough guess, given the weight loss both of you have declared, and knowing how difficult it is to eat large quantities of protein or fat without carbs to provide a contrast, you're on restricted-calorie diets of, say, 1600 calories per day.

That means that 200/1600 = 12.5% of your calorie intake is from carbs - more if you go higher. That's low and abnormal. Frustratingly, the wiki-page on Ketosis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis) gives a _different_ ratio than the one I found above for carbs - but, conveniently for me, one not different from 12.5% (and much higher than the one FD suggests) - and gives four different references for the fact that it's not low enough to induce ketosis.

Looking at the wiki-page on the ketogenic diet used to treat epilepsy (the things you learn from Cyclechat - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet) gives a figure of between 86% and 90% of calories _from fat_.

My best _guess_ - and bear in mind that I'm an ordinary sceptic, not a medic - is that you're eating a reasonably balanced restricted calorie diet, rather than anything inducing a specific and different digestion pathway. Which, frankly, doesn't surprise me all that much - most diets, when you come to investigate them, come down to the same thing. And, no surprise, eating a restricted calorie diet is (a) very difficult to keep up over the very long term, (b) effective in the medium term, and (c) very effective in the short term, then makes you feel lousy for several weeks.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Sep 2014)

Interesting. However, the initial weight loss is down to the kick starting process of switching to ketogenic, as the recommendation is to only eat around 1500 calories a day for the first couple of weeks, which with the salt loss meaning a proportion of the rapid loss is due to removal of stored water. However, then it kicks in and starts removing fat (which is where my long term beer gut disappeared).

Although I'd posted what I ate Saturday, to be honest, that was unusual as I didn't eat as much as usual, as that's another advantage of a ketogenic lifestyle as you don't get the hunger cravings/rumbling stomach/need to feed.

I've just spent a bit of time adding up calories for a typical range of day's foods, and reckon I consume around 2,300 - 2,500 calories per day.

Once you get over the initial conversion phase, where you do feel a bit lethargic and I found I'd lost the top 25% of my power cycling, after about 8 weeks the energy & power comes back, and then basically it's like a flywheel, as you can just keep on going. As I mentioned earlier, I'm quite happy doing a 100 mile ride at a fast pace, without stopping or needing to eat anything. I've been on it for 18 months without any problems in keeping to it, especially as you lose the addiction to sugar. The only thing I check when cooking is grammes of carb. Avoiding bread & pasta makes it easier.


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Normal meats, cheese, cream, butter. Whatever takes my fancy. For example on Saturday I had strawberries and cream for breakfast, then went shopping and cycled a few more miles with 30 kg of shopping. Then I went out & did some more cycling before coming back to spend a few hours working on bikes. Had a couple of handfuls of peanuts around 3 pm, and then about 6pm pan fried some chicken fillets with chillies, which I then ate with some vegetables smothered in molten cheese. Then I had some blueberries with cream.
> 
> I evacuate my bowels normally once a day, occasionally twice, but perhaps once or twice a week it might go to a second day between movements. There's far less waste material, as the body isn't being bulked up with stuff it can't fully use. So less toilet paper is used as well.


This sounds more like the Atkins diet? Hardly massive on fat. And not really that short on fruit and veg. Although nowhere near mine. As I am on the 5:2 permanently I a had large salad, jacket nothing on and chicken breast in the George Foreman, no need for any oil. Good for you!! I am also trying to increase my beer/cider consumption although this is only to help keep village amenities going as I don't really like beer!


----------



## brand (1 Sep 2014)

velovoice said:


> "What a load of rubbish" - back atcha.
> 
> I for one was born with carbohydrate intolerance. Yes, born with it. Yes, totally intolerant. To ALL carbs. Coupled to that is a tendency to hyper-insulinism... which is related to hypoglycemia... which is related to -- guess what -- type 2 diabetes.
> 
> ...


Give over what proportion of the population do you represent?


----------



## Mo1959 (2 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Avoiding bread & pasta makes it easier.


That's me snookered from the start. I am a breadaholic!


----------



## Flying Dodo (2 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> Give over what proportion of the population do you represent?


Same proportion as you. 

Seriously though, I've known a number of people who have issues generally with carbohydrates and carbohydrate intolerance is a well known medical condition. One girl at work has found just about anything with carbs in triggers off her IBS.


----------



## Flying Dodo (2 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> This sounds more like the Atkins diet? Hardly massive on fat. And not really that short on fruit and veg. Although nowhere near mine. As I am on the 5:2 permanently I a had large salad, jacket nothing on and chicken breast in the George Foreman, no need for any oil. Good for you!! I am also trying to increase my beer/cider consumption although this is only to help keep village amenities going as I don't really like beer!



Loads of fat in fact. 10 strawberries is only about 15g of carb, and 100 ml of blueberries is 15 g. Split between the 2 portions of fruit I had probably at least 450 ml of cream on them. Chicken fried in butter. Actually I've just remembered I also cooked some mushrooms in cream with it. Not much carbs in the veg I ate. Peanuts are mainly fat.


----------



## srw (2 Sep 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Interesting. However, the initial weight loss is down to the kick starting process of switching to ketogenic, as the recommendation is to only eat around 1500 calories a day for the first couple of weeks, which with the salt loss meaning a proportion of the rapid loss is due to removal of stored water.


 Not quite. The initial weight loss is down to the kick-starting process of eating a restricted diet.

At 2000 calories per day, your 200 calories of carbs is still 10%, which is still considerably more than the epilepsy-controlling ketogenic diet - and that's possibly without counting whatever there is in meat and other proteins*.

If either you or Jogger has had a medical test to confirm ketosis, I'll believe you're ketotic. Otherwise, I'll maintain scepticism. And admit that a diet without _any _particular type of food (that I like) is my idea of hell - and thankfully I absolutely don't need it because of strict intolerance or allergy.


*This page suggests that processed meat and offal has a reasonable amount, while if you eat pulses or green veg you're also eating something with some carbs in.


----------



## Flying Dodo (2 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> Oh my god you are suggesting I give up Brussel sprouts!



I've always liked Brussels sprouts, but then again they've never given me any issues like wind.

Here's a nice recipe for you. 

In a frying pan, cook a couple of rashers of bacon, then allow to cool, then cut into small pieces. Chop the Brussels sprouts in half, then cook in a saucepan of boiling water until almost soft. Then add the sprouts to the bacon, and fry them together for a few minutes, and pour on some sweet chilli sauce, then eat.


----------



## velovoice (2 Sep 2014)

brand said:


> Give over what proportion of the population do you represent?


Doesn't matter, as you said "NO ONE AT ALL". You are wrong.

ETA: But if you're truly interested, I'll dig out the statistics when I get home tonight.


----------



## Flying Dodo (2 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> Not quite. The initial weight loss is down to the kick-starting process of eating a restricted diet.
> 
> At 2000 calories per day, your 200 calories of carbs is still 10%, which is still considerably more than the epilepsy-controlling ketogenic diet - and that's possibly without counting whatever there is in meat and other proteins*.
> 
> ...



The medical research out there does confirm what I've said re the intial weight loss. It was only calorie controlled for the first 2 weeks, and yet I consistently lost roughly 1 kg per week for 8 weeks. As an aside, at the end of about 3 months, my waist measurement had gone from 36" to 32", a size it hadn't been for 25 years. I had to buy loads of new clothes, suits, cycling shorts etc.

In addition, for ketosis to continue, it's not the calories, but the quantity of carbs that's the key factor. Once you go above a certain amount, then the body switches back to running on carbs. Generally, the fitter the individual, the higher the threshold. Several times in the last 18 months I know I've gone quite a bit over 100g which I reckon is roughly my maximum, and then all of a sudden, even a short bike ride makes me bonk (as my body has hardly any glycogen). So I have to get back on the wagon again to get running on ketones again. 

If I wasn't currently in ketosis I couldn't do the prolonged exercise I do without needing to eat anything, as my body simply wouldn't have the glycogen to fuel the muscles, which is what it would need if I was running on carbs. Plus I can tell from the smell of my urine.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (11 Sep 2014)

I was tested for ketosis, you can buy wee sticks!


----------



## The Jogger (12 Sep 2014)

I bought the sticks and I'm half way along the chart.


----------



## gurninman (16 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> You mean - other than the millions of books and food products sold under the lable of "Atkins"? I've lost count of the number of places I've seen "low-carb" ready meals available recently.
> 
> So far as I can tell, the real issue is that people eat more than they need - it's elementary physics. There are a heck of a lot of reasons why that happens, which is a fascinating topic touching on psychology, biology, marketing and chemistry. With the possible exception of the fat-sugar combo no individual food or ingredient is intrinsically bad, but it's all very available, expectations of portion sizes have increased, and the food (sorry FF) and marketing industries have got very good at persuading us to consume it.


TBH, I've never seen a low carb ready meal - but then I never buy ready meals (and never have done) anyway 
What I was trying to say about the lack of money to be made is that the general public think that fat in food is bad - this is wrong, and the real danger is sugar and carbs.
In response to the commmonly held views on fat in food, big business pushes low fat products with a vengeance and because of the perception of 'fat is bad', Joe Public buys them
Low-fat almost always means an increase in carbs to maintain some semblance of edibility - with corresponding nasty effects to human biochemistry
I got fat by eating too much - most of that was starchy foods .I love bread , rice , pasta etc. and suspect that the huge amounts I was eating was the trigger for the diabetes
Since drastically cutting back on carbs, only consuming them in veg / fruit etc. , my blood sugars have become almost the same as a non-diabetic
No doubt as I lose more weight this will improve still further , combined with regular exercise.


----------



## Fab Foodie (16 Sep 2014)

Inspired by @The Jogger (there’s a surprise  ) and @Flying Dodo spirited and sincere defence of his diet plan, I decided to do some self-experimentation ….

[WARNING: CONTAINS ANECDATA]

I gave-up sugar, pasta, rice, bread, pastry, cake, cereal, potato.
I just increased the salad, fruit and veg components of my regular diet. I was travelling and didn’t find it too difficult to make these choices work either.
I was extra grumpy for the first 1- 2 days
Then I was OK.
In fact I soon started to feel better than OK. I felt more alert, less tired and significantly less hungry. I slept better. I also felt less tense/heartbeaty. I also felt less bloaty/windy.
I didn’t consciously restrict the quantity of food, just ate until I felt replete.
After a week of travel I got home and wife and daughter both mentioned I even looked thinner. My belt is certainly at least one hole tighter.

At one difficult moment after a very early start without breakfast I had a few chocolate biscuits (more out of habit than need) and felt very hyper with a rapid heartbeat soon after.
My Daughter also has the same ‘sugar rushes’ as me and finds restricting Carb intake helps, Mrs FF however doesn’t have them at all. It’s possible that our insulin responses vary and there may be hereditary issues involved.

Bike-wise, I’ve been going like the clappers, but that may not be related.

Long story short, I’ve felt so good this last week that I’m going to see if I can keep eating this way until Christmas. I’m not Ketonic (at least my wee smells OK still – Asparagus intake aside). Towards Christmas I’ll get a fasting Cholesterol check (I need one anyhow) and see how it looks. I might get some wee strips.

I remain both sceptical and incredulous, though I've never advocated low fat/high carb diet as being a good thing. I've also seen some good correlations (I know it's not =causation) showing the explosion in adult and childhood obesity with the rise of the low-fat diet.
My thinking is that I am restricting my calories @srw through simply feeling less hungry and not having any cravings.

Other skeptics ... try what I did and report back!


----------



## gurninman (16 Sep 2014)

I'll wager a lipid profile will show improvements - mine certainly has , and I'm eating way more saturated fat than I have since I was a teen
I now only use full fat milk, butter instead of something like,clover, lovely fatty pork chops etc. 
My waist size has dropped from a 40" to 36" since the end of jun, and so far lost 18kg.I don't do masses of exercise - 15-20 mins cycling every other morning , a bit of swimming and some light work with weights at home
LCHF has certainly shown a lot of improvements for people on a diabetes forum I frequent , and as diabetics we have very regular blood forms done, so can document the changes


----------



## The Jogger (16 Sep 2014)

@Fab Foodie That sounds like you are definitely seeing and feeling the benefits. I do and am sleeping much better also. I have taken up the jogging again, doing four milers a few times a week. I'm looking at all of this as a prep for my retirement. Before I run or cycle instead of food I have a bulletproof coffee. Absolutely brilliant, I use coffee, kerrygold butter and coconut oil. You would be amazed how it works.


----------



## jcoomber (17 Sep 2014)

Fats are also amazing as they are the base of all hormone production, this is why sleep is better (melatonin) and energy is higher. Like everything there are moderation standings so make sure you don't drop bellow 20% carbs a day as this will drop your body into ketosis and, although amazing for loosing weight, isn't great for performance. 
@The Jogger I hope you don't use the actual bullet proof brand? Such an overpriced product. A good organic single origin will do the job!!


----------



## The Jogger (17 Sep 2014)

Thanks JC no I use a good coffee and find that works, cheers.


----------



## The Jogger (17 Sep 2014)

Good for you!


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Other skeptics ... try what I did and report back!


No thanks - but if the terms were right I might be persuaded to join a comparison with a conventional calorie-counting diet. Picking up on your suggestion that you're "just" restricting calorie intake, do you have any idea how much to?

In the long run, I suspect that different diets will work differently from others. Some people will be able to stick to a highly restrictive diet, others won't.


----------



## Fab Foodie (18 Sep 2014)

srw said:


> No thanks - but if the terms were right I might be persuaded to join a comparison with a conventional calorie-counting diet. Picking up on your suggestion that you're "just" restricting calorie intake, do you have any idea how much to?
> 
> In the long run, I suspect that different diets will work differently from others. Some people will be able to stick to a highly restrictive diet, others won't.


Of course it's a completely unscientific study and right now I have enough to do without counting calories. But a relatively simple dietary change in terms if what to do appears to have had a notable effect. I suspect insulin response playing a big part.

Anyhow, as best I can I will continue ... Though not so easy to do in the middle if nowhere Russia right now!


----------



## Turdus philomelos (18 Sep 2014)

For me I discovered it's all about certain amino acids from proteins that were completely missing from my vegetarian diet. Though it has been put forward that they are also missing from the food chain due to modern intensive farming.

Anyway, after a bit of research and rather easy change in eating habits, I lost nearly 7 stone just with a low(ish) carb, high protein, amino supplemented diet. The most dangerous culprit is wheat. I've mentioned before about the eye opening, and shock book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wheat-Belly-Davis-William-MD/dp/1609611543. You will never put a bit of garbage bread in your diet again.

For the record I seriously cycled before I lost the weight so I cant put cycling completely down to the mass loss. My fitness however
is the best ever, no bad for an over 50 chick.


----------



## poynedexter (19 Sep 2014)

as a cyclist trying to become leaner and fitter, i'm working with the following:

restricting calories is mentally hard to do, but is possible as long as i dont spend long periods being hungry, with all the mood problems that can bring. its the over eating because of hunger which kills me.

i eat a large complex carb rich, high fibre breakfast. it gives me loads of energy till lunchtime and makes me feel good.
i eat a large salad with chicken or fish, inc cheese and coleslaw for lunch
dinner is protein and veg based and smaller. i dont need the carbs for fuel in the evening unless im training.

because of the great breakfast, i'm mentally happy to avoid sugar, in the form of biscuits choc, however when im on the bike i will eat whatever i want, because its fueling me and allowing me to train.

i'm probably in a calorie deficit because my body fat is reducing. i use butter, eat oily fish, eggs, drink milky protein shake after a ride, these things help me to avoid SUGAR in the eve. if i feel good, its easy to avoid crappy food. if i feel hungry and bad, i crave sugar.

i'm a big believer in the bad effects of bad carbs, and the idea that the body reacts differently to different food groups.


----------



## bloodlett (8 Oct 2014)

I get my carbs from fruit and vegies , I eat fruit and protein in am and usually a salad with evoo and red wine vinegar plus cheese for protein and fat for my lunch and dinner is stir fry beef, chicken or pork with lots of fresh vegies I started 10 days ago and lost 6 lbs. while building up my legs biking am never hungry if I want a snack I eat a dill pickle or two plus I always have a big bowl of cucumber salad in the fridge to snack on . it is working for me I have tons of energy am never hungry most evenings I have to force my self to finish the stir fry and my legs are getting stronger my belly is getting smaller


----------



## Razzle (8 Oct 2014)

I have been dabbling with this on and off for the last couple of months,

I find as soon as I start I lose 4-8lb, its water.


----------



## The Jogger (8 Oct 2014)

I am about five weeks into this, for me the weight loss is gradual, although I'm hsve a few worries st the minute, I feel physically good which is what I need.


----------



## luckyfox (25 Feb 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> Generally, the fitter the individual, the higher the threshold



Looking for advice on this, I'm trying to slowly up my carbs to remain in ketosis but up my calories and slow down my weight loss. Problem is, 9 months of so little carbs, trying to eat more just leaves me in pain! My body does not like it at all. In theory I could maintain the Keto diet I have now and up protein/fats but that takes me out of balance. I'm gluten free so a lot of the heavy carbs are oat/rice based. I have been ok with some starchy veg but not potato, even a small amount makes me feel really uncomfortable. 

I really need to up my calories to prevent muscle atrophy as my fat reserves are getting low!


----------



## HeroesFitness (25 Feb 2015)

It is fairly straight forward, the western diet is full of sugar laden crap, causing obesity and diabetes and other related health problems like cancer. Avoid sugar except post workout, but that should be in the form of a fresh fruit and protein smoothie for full recovery


----------



## mcshroom (25 Feb 2015)

Or milk


----------



## luckyfox (25 Feb 2015)

mcshroom said:


> Or milk



Nice thinking, that could really work...full fat, protein, more carbs and less filling..organic too. Nice, thanks for that!


----------



## Fab Foodie (25 Feb 2015)

luckyfox said:


> Nice thinking, that could really work...full fat, protein, more carbs and less filling..organic too. Nice, thanks for that!


Milk
Chocomilk
Nesquick

Chocomilk as a recovery product is recommended by many sports organisations. Cheap, simple, effective. Think about what milk is designed for ... building bodies.


----------



## Flying Dodo (25 Feb 2015)

luckyfox said:


> Looking for advice on this, I'm trying to slowly up my carbs to remain in ketosis but up my calories and slow down my weight loss. Problem is, 9 months of so little carbs, trying to eat more just leaves me in pain! My body does not like it at all. In theory I could maintain the Keto diet I have now and up protein/fats but that takes me out of balance. I'm gluten free so a lot of the heavy carbs are oat/rice based. I have been ok with some starchy veg but not potato, even a small amount makes me feel really uncomfortable.
> 
> I really need to up my calories to prevent muscle atrophy as my fat reserves are getting low!



I've generally found any excess fat I eat tends to come out the other end! If you feel you're losing muscle tissue then you can't still be in ketosis, as it means your body is trying to use that as it's not getting enough carbs to convert to glycogen for fuel. If your body is properly adapted to run on fat, then that's what it will do. I have found a couple of times due to eating too many carbs, I go into a sort of halfway way state whereby I can do normal things and feel OK, but if I went for a slightly faster bike ride for example, it would leave me feeling wiped out. The solution was to cut back my calorie intake for a couple of days and ensure that only a very small amount, no more than 20g or so, was carbs, to force my body back into a proper fat burning state, and then after about a week or so I was "back on the wagon".


----------



## sabian92 (25 Feb 2015)

I tried keto for about 3 months and within the first week lost 6kgs, then it tailed off a bit, but over all I dropped about 1.5st I think.

I stopped being so strict and put it back on (and then some) but my main issue was variety... I got sick of eating the same stuff over and over. I'd try it again though.


----------



## HeroesFitness (3 Mar 2015)

Try and stay away from cows milk as it is not the best source of what you need, try oatmilk, almond or rice milk and maybe use a small amount of rice, pea or hemp protein, all natural and no sign of dairy in them.


----------



## Flying Dodo (3 Mar 2015)

sabian92 said:


> I tried keto for about 3 months and within the first week lost 6kgs, then it tailed off a bit, but over all I dropped about 1.5st I think.
> 
> I stopped being so strict and put it back on (and then some) but my main issue was variety... I got sick of eating the same stuff over and over. I'd try it again though.



Keto doesn't have to be excessively restrictive. True, you can only get away with a slice or two of bread a day, and no pizza or pasta. But there's not a lot else you should ignore.


----------



## The Jogger (3 Mar 2015)

I find bullet proof coffee type drink is better than carbs for cycling or running.


----------



## axwj29 (4 Mar 2015)

HeroesFitness said:


> Try and stay away from cows milk as it is not the best source of what you need, try oatmilk, almond or rice milk and maybe use a small amount of rice, pea or hemp protein, all natural and no sign of dairy in them.



Aren't those 'milks' very low protein? How did you get used to those protein powders? I tried for weeks and, no matter how I disguised them, they made me gag!

I now have a couple of hard boiled eggs after exercise. Or a high protein meal at weekends. I'm vegetarian and milk free. Still eat some cheese and butter. Making huge efforts to eat plenty of protein but worried about the reported side affects of soya products.


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Mar 2015)

HeroesFitness said:


> Try and stay away from cows milk as it is not the best source of what you need, try oatmilk, almond or rice milk and maybe use a small amount of rice, pea or hemp protein, all natural and no sign of dairy in them.


I disagree.
Cows milk is one of the most nutritious foods available with a list of benefits few are aware of. If you have no intolerance to lactose cows milk is one if the best foods to build and maintain an active body. Again, it's very design is to enable body growth.
What's more it's cheap and available.


----------



## axwj29 (4 Mar 2015)

Fab Foodie said:


> I disagree.
> Cows milk is one of the most nutritious foods available with a list of benefits few are aware of.  If you have no intolerance to lactose cows milk is one if the best foods to build and maintain an active body. Again, it's very design is to enable body growth.
> What's more it's cheap and available.



The pasteurisation process kills most of the good stuff. Raw milk is awesome but sadly my body still doesn't like it much. For anyone interested in the welfare of farmers and dairy herds, you also buy it direct from the farm.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Mar 2015)

Yes, designed to enable the growth of calves


----------



## vickster (4 Mar 2015)

So they get big and strong and can be turned into yummy burgers and steaks


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Mar 2015)

axwj29 said:


> The pasteurisation process kills most of the good stuff. Raw milk is awesome but sadly my body still doesn't like it much. For anyone interested in the welfare of farmers and dairy herds, you also buy it direct from the farm.


Really it doesn't, even pasteurised it's a bloody excellent foodstuff that's hard to better.


----------



## sabian92 (11 Mar 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> Keto doesn't have to be excessively restrictive. True, you can only get away with a slice or two of bread a day, and no pizza or pasta. But there's not a lot else you should ignore.



What sort of stuff did you eat (if you eat a keto diet, that is!) if you don't mind me asking? I love a good steak etc, but even I was getting sick of the amount of meat and eggs I was eating.

My other half wasn't too fond of it either, made me pretty gassy as well


----------



## Flying Dodo (11 Mar 2015)

For a typical day, breakfast is a cooked breakfast of some variety, lunch - salad with cheese/meat and mayo or coleslaw, perhaps an avocado. For tonight's evening meal I made a cottage pie with sweet potato on top instead of normal potato. If I hadn't run out of cream, I would have had some strawberries & cream afterwards, but made do with some nuts.

Provided I keep to roughly less than 100g of carbs per day then it's ok. The key thing is to avoid stuff made from grains and things with lots of added sugar. It's only when you actually look at labels, that you realise just how much sugar they add to so many foodstuffs.


----------



## The Jogger (11 Mar 2015)

For my dinner tonight I did chicken thighs in the oven with a whole lemon juiced and poured over the chicken along with oregano and plenty of butter, served with roasted veg, followed by raspberries and organic double cream...........

Lunch was a tuna salad from Eat and breakfast was bacon, eggs and clonakilty black pudding.

All keto and quite low carb.


----------



## HeroesFitness (20 Mar 2015)

Milk maybe cheap but it is not meant for human consumption, it is done a s a cheap way to feed the masses, also the dairy farms are manipulated by the big supermarkets, it is disgusting how the farmers are treated, the government should step in.


----------



## Speicher (20 Aug 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> For a typical day, breakfast is a cooked breakfast of some variety, lunch - salad with cheese/meat and mayo or coleslaw, perhaps an avocado. For tonight's evening meal I made a cottage pie with sweet potato on top instead of normal potato. If I hadn't run out of cream, I would have had some strawberries & cream afterwards, but made do with some nuts.
> 
> Provided I keep to roughly less than 100g of carbs per day then it's ok. The key thing is to avoid stuff made from grains and things with lots of added sugar. It's only when you actually look at labels, that you realise just how much sugar they add to so many foodstuffs.



@Flying Dodo and @The Jogger

Is there a book that you can recommend for the details of this type of diet please? I have been talking at length today to someone who has been very successful on the "Keto" diet as he calls it. He has lost two stone in eleven weeks.


----------



## Flying Dodo (20 Aug 2015)

Try The Art & Science of Low Carb Living. The same authors have also done a more advanced one aimed at athletes.


----------



## The Jogger (20 Aug 2015)

Book Cereal Killers and a film of the same name but not related. You can download the film from their site CK or Amazon very interesting and useful info. Also YouTube Gary Taubes he has some highly recommended books as well as Tim Noakes.


----------



## The Jogger (20 Aug 2015)

http://garytaubes.com/


----------



## Speicher (20 Aug 2015)

@Flying Dodo - Does that book include "Food Plans"?

I like the sound of the examples of the food you usually eat.

For instance, I did not realise that sweet potato would be a better option than normal potato. Nor did I realise that strawberries and cream would be a healthy option.

The person I was talking to today said that he can have steak and salad, but not the chips. That is a sacrifice I could easily make. Then there is your lunch of meat, salad and coleslaw. 

I usually have organic porridge oats (with skimmed milk) for breakfast, so I would like to find out if that needs to be changed. One of the excerpts on Amazon suggested almonds/almond milk. I do not eat eggs, as in scrambled or boiled.


----------



## Speicher (20 Aug 2015)

One of the important things we discussed this morning is sugar levels and glycaemic indexes.

He said that if he ate breakfast, he felt hungry throughout the day, and ate more than if he "missed" breakfast. His GP thought he might be very close to developing diabetes. He was also taking medication for high blood pressure. Shortly after starting the Keto diet, a few weeks perhaps, his blood pressure reduced and so did his blood sugar levels.


----------



## The Jogger (20 Aug 2015)

I would avoid anything low fat as in skimmed milk. Fried eggs are very good especially if they are fried in coconut oil even better than olive oil for frying. Low fat foods usually are carb loaded as in sugar etc. Eat plenty of avocados and another thing that is satisfying, bulletproof coffee.

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

The Jogger said:


> Fried eggs are very good especially if they are fried in coconut oil


Even better in macadamia nut oil, if you can find it. In fact, _*everything*_ is better, cooked in macadamia nut oil. 

Disclaimer: LCHF/keto Sept 1999 - June 2000 then Nov 2012 - present.
I was borderline diabetic with lifelong chronic lowgrade inflammation + arthritis, IBS and migraines. I have determined I am 100% carbohydrate-intolerant: carbs make me ill. ALL carbs, even vegetables. LCHF has transformed my health and quality of life.


----------



## The Jogger (21 Aug 2015)

velovoice said:


> Even better in macadamia nut oil, if you can find it. In fact, _*everything*_ is better, cooked in macadamia nut oil.



I'll look for that, thanks.


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

Speicher said:


> @Flying Dodo - Does that book include "Food Plans"?
> 
> I like the sound of the examples of the food you usually eat.
> 
> ...



Volek & Phinney don't give you "food plans" but they do educate you in ways that ensure you will never look at food in the same way again!
Successful long term / lifelong changes in diet depend on changing the way you think. Being told What To Eat and What Not To Eat may result in short term weight loss but that will not help you when you're out on your own in the real world.

Organic porridge oats, eh?
Time for 20 questions: Is it an animal? Or is it a plant? One grows fat, the other uses sunlight to manufacture sugar.
Hope that helps! 
(There are exceptions but... get the basics right. Look at your food and see it for it is.)


ETA: Strawberries. @Flying_Dodo eats at the upper end of a LCHF diet as he is maintaining his weight, not losing. He is not and never has (apparently) been insulin resistant or had a metabolism or carbohydrate tolerance problem. He can therefore get away with luxuries that would likely derail weight loss attempts. Strawberries -- while not as 'bad' as many other fruits and of course packed with loads of nutrients -- are nonetheless fructose, which equals sugar.


----------



## Speicher (21 Aug 2015)

velovoice said:


> Volek & Phinney don't give you "food plans" but they do educate you in ways that ensure you will never look at food in the same way again!
> Successful long term / lifelong changes in diet depend on changing the way you think. Being told What To Eat and What Not To Eat may result in short term weight loss but that will not help you when you're out on your own in the real world.
> 
> Organic porridge oats, eh?
> ...



The oats are Flahavan's and described as "organic". I take that to mean using as few chemicals etc as possible. Besides that, they taste lovely, and are chunky flakes as opposed to some "dusty" ones that are available.

I agree that I do not want to be told what to eat. I would like the details of how to eat healthily, for example that steak and salad is a healthy choice. I also like peanuts and brazil nuts.

If i have porridge for breakfast (40g) can that be part of or all of my carbs for the day? I do not eat a lot of bread, but I do like wholegrain noodles, brown and wild rice and wholegrain pasta. I want to avoid becoming "insulin resistant". Also yesterday, my friend explained how much more alert he is feeling, and that he is sleeping better.


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

Purity and additives are important, but oats are oats are oats... they're a plant, grown in a field.... Completely carbohydrate, no matter how organic or ethically grown. Sorry.

Porridge at 40g will almost certainly prevent you from losing weight, even if it's the ONLY carbs you eat all day. They are completely inconsistent with the science of LCHF/keto.

Again - rice! Plant or animal? 

Noodles, pasta - again... oops sorry, completely man made, not even a natural product.

And... god, I really hate to be bursting bubbles here, but... peanuts are not a nut. Which means you have to look at them in a totally different light from true nuts. The question will be, can peanuts fit into your overall plan, in certain quantities? Depends on the plan.

I am a little concerned that basically you are saying "this is what I like to eat now give me a diet that says those are all healthy"...? Steak is low carb. Salad is not. A combination of those two foods in one meal could fit into a LCHF eating plan.... or a High Carb Low Fat one!!!


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

Speicher said:


> how much more alert he is feeling, and that he is sleeping better.


YES! One of the very BEST things about being keto-adapted!


----------



## Speicher (21 Aug 2015)

velovoice said:


> Purity and additives are important, but oats are oats are oats... they're a plant, grown in a field.... Completely carbohydrate, no matter how organic or ethically grown. Sorry.
> 
> I am a little concerned that basically you are saying "this is what I like to eat now give me a diet that says those are all healthy"...? Steak is low carb. Salad is not. A combination of those two foods in one meal could fit into a LCHF eating plan.... or a High Carb Low Fat one!!!
> 
> And... god, I really hate to be bursting bubbles here, but... peanuts are not a nut. Which means you have to look at them in a totally different light from true nuts. The question will be, can peanuts fit into your overall plan, in certain quantities? Depends on the plan.



I am hoping that at one meal per day, I could have oats, or brown rice. So if I had porridge for breakfast, I would avoid carbs for the rest of the day. It will involve big changes, but I am seriously considering doing that for three months, or even six months if it is successful, and then continuing a "maintenance" plan.


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

Has your doctor said you need to make some changes? (Ignoring for now any advice he may have given about HOW to it, what are the headlines? Lose Weight. Lower your cholesteral / blood pressure. Etc.)

I haven't looked upthread to see if you've said anything about your age, being overweight or having health problems. If your body weight is now within the normal range and always has been, it's extremely unlikely that you are already insulin resistant so that may be something you're not even at risk for, in which case, drastic changes probably aren't necessary. If that's the case, then why not? Make a few changes, see how you get on. But be sure to understand that what you are proposing is not a LCHF or keto-adapted diet. So your experience will not match your friend's.


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

I'd still recommending reading Volek & Phinney, for anyone interested in learning what LCHF and keto-adaption really is and the science behind how it works.


----------



## Speicher (21 Aug 2015)

@velovoice am  57 years old and  about three stone overweight. I intend to reach my sixties in much better shape. 

I had one of those "well woman" tests about two years ago, with excellent results for kidney function, liver function etc. It is the weight that is the problem, and the conclusion that too many carbs make me feel drowsy and lethargic.

As you suggest, I could make a few changes, and see what happens.


----------



## ColinJ (21 Aug 2015)

Speicher said:


> @velovoice
> As you suggest, *I could make a few changes, and see what happens.*


Get the bike out of the shed and explore your local lanes ...?


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

Speicher said:


> @velovoice am  57 years old and  about three stone overweight. I intend to reach my sixties in much better shape.
> 
> I had one of those "well woman" tests about two years ago, with excellent results for kidney function, liver function etc. It is the weight that is the problem, and the conclusion that too many carbs make me feel drowsy and lethargic.
> 
> As you suggest, I could make a few changes, and see what happens.



Great news on all that - cutting back on carbs may indeed make a difference. However, I'd just mention it's not a sliding scale, where feeling better increases incrementally at the rate or degree you're cutting back carbs. Your body's fueling system will be one or the other: carb burning (because that's the fuel you're giving it -- even if your body's not happy with that) or fat burning. The challenge is finding the point where the switch can be flipped from one to the other. It truly is either/or. Where that switch is, varies with each person. The danger is, you could reduce your carbs a little lower and a little lower, gradually, but still not flip that switch.... which leaves your body with even less fuel than it's getting now, without burning any fat or losing weight. As Volek & Phinney explain in their book, the real problem with all this is your brain. While the body runs on either carbs OR fat, the brain runs on either carbs OR ketones, which is by-product of fat-burning. So if you're not eating enough carbs to continue fueling both your body AND your brain with CARBS but you haven't switched over to fat-burning, then your brain has NO fuel at all. This is serious stuff. Can be life threatening. 

Something to bear in mind. Not trying to scare you off! Just keep in mind that reducing carbs without reducing them enough to keto-adapt (which you may by now have realised is the term referring to what your brain is using for fuel, not simply a description of what you are or are not eating)..... may be counter productive.


----------



## velovoice (21 Aug 2015)

ColinJ said:


> Get the bike out of the shed and explore your local lanes ...?


Presumably she's already doing that? 
There's an increasing body of science indicating that it's not exercise that results in weight loss, but changes to diet. Exercise can of course help you lose weight as many of us know! But usually -- even if you're not aware of it -- your diet has somehow changed as well, driving that weight loss, with exercise supporting it in terms of muscle gain / fitness / stronger healthier heart etc.


----------



## ColinJ (21 Aug 2015)

IIRC, there was a bike, but it was spending a lot of time unridden ...

I agree that exercise should not be the primary way of losing weight. I was thinking more of the lethargic feelings. I felt a bit like that the other evening but forced myself to go out on a 21 mile loop over a 1,000 ft climb and came home 80 minutes later reenergised and feeling really alive!


----------



## Speicher (21 Aug 2015)

There is a bike in the garage. 

 Some time last century @ColinJ and I nearly met behind the bike sheds. 

I joined this forum, because of my interest in cycle races such as the Giro and Veulta, and Fabian Cancellara.


----------



## Speicher (21 Aug 2015)

velovoice said:


> Something to bear in mind. Not trying to scare you off! Just keep in mind that reducing carbs without reducing them enough to keto-adapt (which you may by now have realised is the term referring to what your brain is using for fuel, not simply a description of what you are or are not eating)..... may be counter productive.



Yes, I will bear that in mind. Perhaps my first step is to stick to complex carbs and eat more vegetables.


----------



## Flying Dodo (21 Aug 2015)

velovoice said:


> Great news on all that - cutting back on carbs may indeed make a difference. However, I'd just mention it's not a sliding scale, where feeling better increases incrementally at the rate or degree you're cutting back carbs. Your body's fueling system will be one or the other: carb burning (because that's the fuel you're giving it -- even if your body's not happy with that) or fat burning. The challenge is finding the point where the switch can be flipped from one to the other. It truly is either/or. Where that switch is, varies with each person.



Just as a follow on point, as covered in the Volek & Phinney book, at the point your body switches to burning fat due to few or no carbs in your food, there's a period of time where you feel a bit "meh" generally. This is where the body is still trying to get used to the adaptation. It can last up to 6-8 weeks in some people, and the effects are different for different people. In my case, I felt OK generally in doing normal day to day things, but found for about the first 4 weeks I'd lost about the top 25% of my hill climbing ability - slopes I used to go up easily became a bit of an effort. However, that soon cleared and my strength came back and now I can ride up hills like a mountain goat - made easier of course by being around 15 kg lighter!

If you do have a relapse and overdose on carbs at any point, the good news is that the body is able to switch back to fat burning much quicker, and the mild lethargy goes in less than a week. I've found I can get away with around 100g of carbs and still stay keto-adapted, although I don't go up to that limit on a daily basis, as I'm sure I couldn't handle 100g every day. However, as stated above, different people will have different limits.


----------



## Flying Dodo (21 Aug 2015)

Speicher said:


> @Flying Dodo - Does that book include "Food Plans"?


Flicking through our copy, in fact it does have 16 pages with a number of recipes as well as example menus for a week of low carb, high fat eating.


----------



## windyrider (22 Sep 2015)

If you want more information on a LCHF diet google the banting diet, over 100 years old and now revised by a Professor Tim Noakes from South Africa.

The recent conference they held their had a host of speakers from around the world presenting their professional take on the values of the LCHF and its impact on health, wealth and exercise, my impression as a layman was "WOW" that's some well based well researched information and has got me thinking a lot more on just what I eat. 

Bullet Coffee just rocks !!!!


----------



## The Jogger (22 Sep 2015)

Tim Noakes is excellent, lots on YouTube from him.


----------



## CyclePower (8 Oct 2015)

The formula I follow is low carb (no sugar, no white flower products but wholegrain bread, brown rice) + high protein (chicken, scrambled egg with low egg yolk content) + high fibre (fruits and salad). 
Avoiding sugar helps me to maintain a great performance through the day, no slowing down.


----------



## Flying Dodo (8 Oct 2015)

CyclePower said:


> The formula I follow is low carb (no sugar, no white flower products but wholegrain bread, brown rice) + high protein (chicken, scrambled egg with low egg yolk content) + high fibre (fruits and salad).
> Avoiding sugar helps me to maintain a great performance through the day, no slowing down.



Avoiding sugar is definitely a good thing, but with eating wholegrain bread, rice, fruit and salad, unless you have an unusually high cut-off point before your body switches from fat to carbs, then it's unlikely you're in ketosis. You're unlikely to realise it's an issue unless you try and exercise hard, as your body can manage every day things on the lower level of carbs it's got, but if you exercise hard and start bonking, then you're not in a fat burning state.


----------



## velovoice (8 Oct 2015)

CyclePower said:


> The formula I follow is low carb (no sugar, no white flower products but wholegrain bread, brown rice) + high protein (chicken, scrambled egg with low egg yolk content) + high fibre (fruits and salad).
> Avoiding sugar helps me to maintain a great performance through the day, no slowing down.


What's your average carb count (in grams) each day? With bread, rice, fruits and salad.... if it's over 100g, it's not a low carb diet. Indeed, if it's over 50, it's unlikely to be ketogenic.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 Apr 2016)

I've just started to follow this way of eating. Mainly as I really do worry about type 2 diabetes. I've slammed on 2 stone due to working a lot of nights and only having access to fast food. 

I'm astonished at how difficult it is to avoid carbs, they're literally in everything. 

I have also realised that due to my high carb diet I have had to eat at least every 4 hours or I get flaky. 

The ironic thing being, I used to eat this way when in the Army and bodybuilding because I needed the proteins for muscle mass, I only stopped because doctors in the 80's and 90's said it was very bad for our health.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 Apr 2016)

32 mile ride today, felt weird, like I'd bonked but could continue steadily. Anyone else experienced this at the start?


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 Apr 2016)

It can take up to 8 weeks to get fully adapted, and for your body to switch to just burning fat and running on ketones. Therefore until then, you will find a lack of energy and ability to do as much exercise as previously so until then, bonking can happen. When I switched, I found I'd initially lost about the top 25% of my strength/hill climbing ability and then in the 4-6 week period afterwards regained it, so that then you can just keep on going. Someone else described it like being a dynamo - you can just keep on pedalling without feeling the need to stop to refuel.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (24 Apr 2016)

So I've upped my carbs to 50-100 per day. The 20-30 was causing me having hypoglycaemic episodes, which is a bit dodgy whilst I'm using power tools and ladders at gutter height. 

The scales reckon I've lost nearly 3/4 stone which seems ridiculous as it's not been long. My Google fu shows it's probably mostly water. 

I think I hit ketosis today aswell, dog breath etc etc.


----------

