I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[robblok]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Sounds like a new adventure, one that I couldn't do as I love my food.

 

Why not just reduce your food intake depending on your age 59, weight, height, let's say reduce your daily intake from 2,500 calories per day to 1,500 calories per day over a week, that should see you drop a kilo, then adjust it to 1,900 calories for a week losing another half a kilo, adjust according to how you feel, noting to also only eat 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fats, and of course continue doing your cardio and weight training with a day off here and there.

 

I have been doing the above for 4 months, am the same age as you and have lost 8kg, not pushing myself as hard as you say you are, but a black coffee first thing in the morning and onto the treadmill for between a 20 to 40 minute workout burns the stored fat throughout the day.

 

You say you have lost 13 kilos over 18 months, that seems to be a long time for little weight loss in my opinion, you also have to trick your body, pigging out one day per week, also throw in a whey shake after weight training and don't forget to do your squats and planks, they help to strengthen your core.

 

My testosterone level is in the just below normal range for my age 58, i.e. it should be 552, but is 5.08 and I am fine with that as muscle building for me is going well considering my age and testosterone level, you can also purchase over the counter tablets to increase your testosterone levels, so I am told, but don't know how effective they are.

 

I think fasting would be a great way to give your stomach and digestive system a break every now and again, but also believe there are other ways to do it from what you eat, also consuming a lot of water.

 

I am no expert and still in my early stages of losing weight and building muscle, feeling and looking better than I have in 30 years, although a little sore in some muscle areas after a workout, but the whey shake sorts that out I have found, as they say, no pain, no gain.

 

Very interesting topic, cheers

 

 

What many people forget is to take into account the starting weight and how fat someone is. Simon is not a big guy and was not really fat. The lasts bits of fat are the hardest to get rid of.

 

I never have a problem to go to slim, but from slim to lean is the hard part. So without really knowing where someone started its hard to judge if 13 kilos over 18 months is a lot or not. I know that Simon is not big at all so for him its a lot

 

 

Its great that you are now working out and reaping the benefits. IMHO sometimes it better to go a bit slower also with training then to go full out and give up after a while.

 

I am now busy going to lean and I am happy that I still did not go full out with exercise, that means I can still add extra stuff if my progress stalls. I have now increased my farmers walks to burn off extra fat (added to my normal weight training). If I really stall I might even add some extra cardio, its good to still have options later on.

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

What many people forget is to take into account the starting weight and how fat someone is. Simon is not a big guy and was not really fat. The lasts bits of fat are the hardest to get rid of.

 

I never have a problem to go to slim, but from slim to lean is the hard part. So without really knowing where someone started its hard to judge if 13 kilos over 18 months is a lot or not. I know that Simon is not big at all so for him its a lot

 

 

Its great that you are now working out and reaping the benefits. IMHO sometimes it better to go a bit slower also with training then to go full out and give up after a while.

 

I am now busy going to lean and I am happy that I still did not go full out with exercise, that means I can still add extra stuff if my progress stalls. I have now increased my farmers walks to burn off extra fat (added to my normal weight training). If I really stall I might even add some extra cardio, its good to still have options later on.

Point taken and makes sense.

 

I am 58 going 59 in 4 months, was 90kg, 183cm am now 82kg and am happy with how things are progressing, however that last bit as you say is the hardest part to get rid of, so I am not pushing it too hard, the body is older and not used to this kind of exercise, e.g. office worker, always in a chair for 10-12 hours a day for the past 30 years.

 

Also look at adding things into my routine, if you can call it that, although not trying to kill oneself, but that 8 extra kilo's was a burden, once I get down to 80kg, i.e. another 2kg, I might slow it down and just maintain it so as to give the body a little rest, but maintain the calorie intake as I am doing, no point in killing myself as I am not 21.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Point taken and makes sense.

 

I am 58 going 59 in 4 months, was 90kg, 183cm am now 82kg and am happy with how things are progressing, however that last bit as you say is the hardest part to get rid of, so I am not pushing it too hard, the body is older and not used to this kind of exercise, e.g. office worker, always in a chair for 10-12 hours a day for the past 30 years.

 

Also look at adding things into my routine, if you can call it that, although not trying to kill oneself, but that 8 extra kilo's was a burden, once I get down to 80kg, i.e. another 2kg, I might slow it down and just maintain it so as to give the body a little rest, but maintain the calorie intake as I am doing, no point in killing myself as I am not 21.

Take your time no need to rush it (i have a lack of patience at times but have learned for weight loss slow and steady is better).

 

You will see that you will slowly also get more capacity to exercise, you will be able to handle more. I found out the hard way that killing yourself is counter productive. I like working out hard in the gym but I did it too hard and it almost killed my mood for training. I had to lie down for more then half an hour after my exercises to recover. Not real motivating. 

 

So I changed it a bit and added days that i would still train but with a lighter weight and all of a sudden there was progress again. I did too much and it was counter productive. Now i am past that and am adding stuff again. 

 

If I were you id slowly add stuff but try to find exercise you like. For me its the farmers walk as it burns calories and gives me muscles. I have a problem with steady state cardio its hard for me mentally. I will add it but only if there is absolutely no other option. 

 

If you can keep your exercise interesting (or at least that you don't hate it) you will keep doing it and it will help and you will reap the rewards. 

[4MyEgo]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

Take your time no need to rush it (i have a lack of patience at times but have learned for weight loss slow and steady is better).

 

You will see that you will slowly also get more capacity to exercise, you will be able to handle more. I found out the hard way that killing yourself is counter productive. I like working out hard in the gym but I did it too hard and it almost killed my mood for training. I had to lie down for more then half an hour after my exercises to recover. Not real motivating. 

 

So I changed it a bit and added days that i would still train but with a lighter weight and all of a sudden there was progress again. I did too much and it was counter productive. Now i am past that and am adding stuff again. 

 

If I were you id slowly add stuff but try to find exercise you like. For me its the farmers walk as it burns calories and gives me muscles. I have a problem with steady state cardio its hard for me mentally. I will add it but only if there is absolutely no other option. 

 

If you can keep your exercise interesting (or at least that you don't hate it) you will keep doing it and it will help and you will reap the rewards. 

Good advice.

 

It's a whole new learning curve for me, especially calculating the carbs, protein and fats and what they are for and what they do for our bodies, wish I knew about this earlier, but still young enough to keep at it and continue what I like doing now, i.e. eating only what I need and knowing what is going in is good for me and I am starting to look a lot better than I used too with the exercising and weight training, the hanhome man was always there, but with a tyre around his waist and almost bigger tits than the wifes....the young one that I service every now and again at the local has also noticed the difference, she doesn't call me poy yi anymore ????

 

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Good advice.

 

It's a whole new learning curve for me, especially calculating the carbs, protein and fats and what they are for and what they do for our bodies, wish I knew about this earlier, but still young enough to keep at it and continue what I like doing now, i.e. eating only what I need and knowing what is going in is good for me and I am starting to look a lot better than I used too with the exercising and weight training, the hanhome man was always there, but with a tyre around his waist and almost bigger tits than the wifes....the young one that I service every now and again at the local has also noticed the difference, she doesn't call me poy yi anymore ????

 

I started a lot younger then you, but I was already lifting weights at around 16 (and then had a long break from 24-33). But if i had known then what I know now things would have been so much better. 

 

There is a lot of good information about weight lifting on uk-muscle far more then here. 

 

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/

 

of course you can also ask in the body and fitness part here would be nice to get that going but there are not too many people here who are active on the forum.

 

 

[JordanJones]

14 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Point taken and makes sense.

 

I am 58 going 59 in 4 months, was 90kg, 183cm am now 82kg and am happy with how things are progressing, however that last bit as you say is the hardest part to get rid of, so I am not pushing it too hard, the body is older and not used to this kind of exercise, e.g. office worker, always in a chair for 10-12 hours a day for the past 30 years.

 

Also look at adding things into my routine, if you can call it that, although not trying to kill oneself, but that 8 extra kilo's was a burden, once I get down to 80kg, i.e. another 2kg, I might slow it down and just maintain it so as to give the body a little rest, but maintain the calorie intake as I am doing, no point in killing myself as I am not 21.

82kgs isn't much. I wouldn't even worry about losing 2kgs. Focus on nutrition and movement.

[4MyEgo]

49 minutes ago, JordanJones said:

82kgs isn't much. I wouldn't even worry about losing 2kgs. Focus on nutrition and movement.

Cardiologist has been telling me for years that he wants to see me get down to 80kg and stay there, to eat well and exercise, and last October when he saw me, he must have had an off day as he served it to me in a kind of way, which I took on board and got off my rear end when I got back here, which of course I am grateful for his push, maybe this October he might say, well the penny finally dropped.

[JordanJones]

Is there any evidence that those 2kgs make any difference in humans? I haven't seen it. Studies on mice have found calorie restriction or keto extends life but one mouse is tiny and the other one is fat.

 

In humans I haven't seen any science to say 2kgs make any difference and if it takes more stress to lose those kilos it may shortern your life as stress raises cortisol levels.

[robblok]

49 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Cardiologist has been telling me for years that he wants to see me get down to 80kg and stay there, to eat well and exercise, and last October when he saw me, he must have had an off day as he served it to me in a kind of way, which I took on board and got off my rear end when I got back here, which of course I am grateful for his push, maybe this October he might say, well the penny finally dropped.

They set a number and that is it, its arbitrary. Because you can have a fat 80 kg guy or a lean one. (even at same weight). Its more about fat percentage. They should work with waist size or something.

 

Its just a tool to make it easy for them to give advice, not too personal.

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

They set a number and that is it, its arbitrary. Because you can have a fat 80 kg guy or a lean one. (even at same weight). Its more about fat percentage. They should work with waist size or something.

 

Its just a tool to make it easy for them to give advice, not too personal.

Agreed, my waist size as at 20 January was 106cm, and as of yesterday was 96cm so in a couple of months you could say that tyre around my waist has gone.

 

I have gone down from size 38 jeans to 36 jeans and my XXL t-shirts are big on me, my old XL's are fitting me nicely once again.

 

I don't believe the BMI calculator to be a fit for everyone as you have tall and short guys, so I use the mirror to see the difference and that scale I want to throw out....lol, but still use the BMI calculator as a guide.

 

On 20 January when I first started referring to the BMI calculator I had a body fat of 28.3% and was in the Obese bar, as of yesterday I had a body fat of 22.4% which is towards the end of the Average bar, and although the percentage drop of 6% doesn't appear to be much in my opinion, I would like to get this fat off, although the bi's, shoulders and chest have done well in bringing back the muscle to life as opposed to flab.

 

I still believe the body fat for me to be too high, am I getting addicted to this change, sure am.

 

Some have said 82kg is nothing, sure but the body fat to me is ugly, suffice to say sticking with good clean nutritional food, counting my calorie intake down this week from 2,000 calories per day to 1,500 calories per day, broken down to comprise 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat, along with regular cardio and weights should help to reduce the weight and body fat even more. 

 

I remember most of my life being 77kg, until I met women who always wanted to feed me, the way to a man's heart, my weakness, apart from the usual desert that follows at bed time ????

 

 

 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Agreed, my waist size as at 20 January was 106cm, and as of yesterday was 96cm so in a couple of months you could say that tyre around my waist has gone.

 

I have gone down from size 38 jeans to 36 jeans and my XXL t-shirts are big on me, my old XL's are fitting me nicely once again.

 

I don't believe the BMI calculator to be a fit for everyone as you have tall and short guys, so I use the mirror to see the difference and that scale I want to throw out....lol, but still use the BMI calculator as a guide.

 

On 20 January when I first started referring to the BMI calculator I had a body fat of 28.3% and was in the Obese bar, as of yesterday I had a body fat of 22.4% which is towards the end of the Average bar, and although the percentage drop of 6% doesn't appear to be much in my opinion, I would like to get this fat off, although the bi's, shoulders and chest have done well in bringing back the muscle to life as opposed to flab.

 

I still believe the body fat for me to be too high, am I getting addicted to this change, sure am.

 

Some have said 82kg is nothing, sure but the body fat to me is ugly, suffice to say sticking with good clean nutritional food, counting my calorie intake down this week from 2,000 calories per day to 1,500 calories per day, broken down to comprise 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat, along with regular cardio and weights should help to reduce the weight and body fat even more. 

 

I remember most of my life being 77kg, until I met women who always wanted to feed me, the way to a man's heart, my weakness, apart from the usual desert that follows at bed time ????

 

 

 

I purely exercise for myself and to get rid of more fat, my fat percentage is lower but i still don't like how it looks. For me its purely aesthetics right now as i am slim enough. 

 

Yes its addictive to see change problem is that its hard to keep changing. IMHO it sometimes easier to lose weigh then to keep it off as the process of losing it is motivating. 

[WaveHunter]

I've always wondered something about fasting in relation to protein synthesis but have never been able to get a suitable science-based explanation from any source.  I wonder if anybody has some feedback or opinions (backed up by science) on this.  Let me explain:  I only fast to induce autophagy BUT what I wonder about is in connection to someone who's goal is to reduce stored body fat by prolonged fasting.

 

I don't fast for weight loss; my main reason for fasting is only to accelerate autophagy and have it focused on catabolizing "damaged, dysfunctional protein".  I only fast for a period of time for this to occur (typically around 72 hours).

 

My question relates to someone who is doing a prolonged fast to loose body fat, and will therefore be sacrificing more essential proteins over the period of the fast.  Since ketone bodies will provide the bulk of fuel for the body and brain once a fast has progressed beyond 72 hours, essential muscle loss will be minimized but there will still be a net loss.

 

What I wonder about is whether a protein-only fast that provided the minimum MDR (0.8g/kg of body weight) would solve this problem.  Any thoughts???

[WaveHunter]

For anyone interested in the relationship of autophagy and RNA, I just read an interesting study.  Since dysfunctional RNA is increasingly believed to be the underlying basis for many diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimers, and Parkinson's just to name a few, the link between autophagy and RNA is an important one.

 

Emerging connections between RNA and autophagy.

 

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240835/)

 

[JordanJones]

Wouldn't it easier to eat 1500 calories and exercise an extra 800 than to fast on 700 calories? It would be for me. Plus you get fitter.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

For anyone interested in the relationship of autophagy and RNA, I just read an interesting study.  Since dysfunctional RNA is increasingly believed to be the underlying basis for many diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimers, and Parkinson's just to name a few, the link between autophagy and RNA is an important one.

 

Emerging connections between RNA and autophagy.

 

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240835/)

 

The research article you've quoted is perhaps a bit too technical for most of us, but the general impression I get from this article, and others that I've come across, which address the same issue, give me confidence that fasting has significant health benefits, in addition to any purpose of fasting merely for weight loss.

 

Some of you might be aware that I've made many posts in the Buddhist forum on this site. Buddhism is a subject which interests me because of its connection with rational and philosophical thought, rather than its connection with mystical mumbo jumbo.

 

A fascinating aspect of the historical narrative relating to the Buddha's life, is the story about his fasting to extremes in order to achieve enlightenment. At some stage after very prolonged fasting, the Buddha realized that if he were to continue fasting he would simply die without have achieved anything, so he began accepting food from charming young ladies. ????

 

Some time later, after gaining weight so that his ribs were no longer sticking out, as depicted in many statues of the Buddha in Thai temples, the Buddha decided to sit under a Bodhi tree until he achieved enlightenment, which of course he did, according to the scriptures.

 

If one thinks about this situation in the light of recent research on the benefits of fasting, this story of the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree makes some rational sense.

 

When one fasts to extremes, the body frantically creates additional brain cells to help the organism recognize food sources in the interests of its own survival. The process of autophagy is selective. Defunct white blood cells are consumed as food in preference to fully functioning white blood cells. (White blood cells are the cells of the immune system that are involved in protecting the body against both infectious disease and foreign invaders.)

 

If the above points are true, then that provides an insight into the Buddha's situation. After fasting to extremes, his body would have created additional neurons whilst also consuming all the defunct white blood cells for food.

 

After ceasing fasting, the Buddha's immune system would have been improved by the regeneration of new, white blood cells, and the additional neurons created during fasting would have later helped him, under the Bodhi tree, to think more clearly than ever, resulting in enlightenment. Fantastic! ????
 

[WaveHunter]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The research article you've quoted is perhaps a bit too technical for most of us, but the general impression I get from this article, and others that I've come across, which address the same issue, give me confidence that fasting has significant health benefits, in addition to any purpose of fasting merely for weight loss.

 

Some of you might be aware that I've made many posts in the Buddhist forum on this site. Buddhism is a subject which interests me because of its connection with rational and philosophical thought, rather than its connection with mystical mumbo jumbo.

 

A fascinating aspect of the historical narrative relating to the Buddha's life, is the story about his fasting to extremes in order to achieve enlightenment. At some stage after very prolonged fasting, the Buddha realized that if he were to continue fasting he would simply die without have achieved anything, so he began accepting food from charming young ladies. ????

 

Some time later, after gaining weight so that his ribs were no longer sticking out, as depicted in many statues of the Buddha in Thai temples, the Buddha decided to sit under a Bodhi tree until he achieved enlightenment, which of course he did, according to the scriptures.

 

If one thinks about this situation in the light of recent research on the benefits of fasting, this story of the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree makes some rational sense.

 

When one fasts to extremes, the body frantically creates additional brain cells to help the organism recognize food sources in the interests of its own survival. The process of autophagy is selective. Defunct white blood cells are consumed as food in preference to fully functioning white blood cells. (White blood cells are the cells of the immune system that are involved in protecting the body against both infectious disease and foreign invaders.)

 

If the above points are true, then that provides an insight into the Buddha's situation. After fasting to extremes, his body would have created additional neurons whilst also consuming all the defunct white blood cells for food.

 

After ceasing fasting, the Buddha's immune system would have been improved by the regeneration of new, white blood cells, and the additional neurons created during fasting would have later helped him, under the Bodhi tree, to think more clearly than ever, resulting in enlightenment. Fantastic! ????
 

I know it's pretty technical but the take-away is that there seems to be a connection between autophagy and dysfunctional RNA, not simply dysfunctional proteins in general.  Since recent research into many disease states such as cancers, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's is indicating that these type of diseases may be due to dysfunctional RNA caused by metabolic changes related to poor nutrition (i.e.: high consumption of high fructose corn syrup, for instance), it makes autophagy, and by way of association, fasting even more relevant to optimal health since autophagy seems to be the body's mechanism for consuming and recycling these aberrant RNA.

 

For those who think extreme fasting (i.e.: longer than 48 hours) is unhealthy, it's certainly something to consider.  And, as you've pointed out, fasting is not a new fad; it's been practiced by enlightened people since the dawn of time even though things such as autophagy were unknown until only recently.

[WaveHunter]

For those who think you can't build muscle on a keto-based diet, check out this video.  I am usually pretty wary of most things I see on YouTube but this guy really knows his stuff when it comes to performance-based (and science-based) nutrition....and his delivery is quite entertaining too ????

 

How to Build Muscle on Keto (Can You Build Muscle on Keto Diet? Keto Bodybuilding Results - 2 Years)

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

For those who think you can't build muscle on a keto-based diet, check out this video.  I am usually pretty wary of most things I see on YouTube but this guy really knows his stuff when it comes to performance-based (and science-based) nutrition....and his delivery is quite entertaining too ????

 

How to Build Muscle on Keto (Can You Build Muscle on Keto Diet? Keto Bodybuilding Results - 2 Years)

 

 

I read it and checked other sources, they say its possible but far from optimal. Next time when I come across it i will show studies that prove that its a lot harder.

 

But yes I seen research that shows it can be done. But its much harder. Its akin to saying can i run a marathon on flip flops.. yes it can be done but it certainly not optimal. 

 

Next time I find the research that i read that compared keto with normal training ill post it. 

[WaveHunter]

21 hours ago, robblok said:

I read it and checked other sources, they say its possible but far from optimal. Next time when I come across it i will show studies that prove that its a lot harder.

 

But yes I seen research that shows it can be done. But its much harder. Its akin to saying can i run a marathon on flip flops.. yes it can be done but it certainly not optimal. 

 

Next time I find the research that i read that compared keto with normal training ill post it. 

I understand that the Keto concept has become a matter of some dispute in the fitness world, as high calorie burning folks have a hard time embracing the idea that they can benefit from consuming fewer calories and rejecting the obsession with immediate refueling to restore glycogen after vigorous workouts.

 

Firstly, "keto" does not mean one is in ketosis 100% of the time; rather it mean that the body has been optimally adapted (trained) to use stored body fat as a primary fuel source when the need arises.  The average person who relies on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source looses this ability.

 

The question is not really whether carbs or fat are a better primary fuel source; it is a matter of how effectively the body can shift from carbs to fats as a primary fuel source.  That is what keto-adaptation is really all about.  Most people who have an issue with "keto" do not understand the difference between being in a keto-state and being keto-adapted.  There is a big difference!  What's more, most people you think they have tried keto with a 48 hour fast, actually have not even reached a keto-state!

 

It may only take 72 hours to be in a state of ketosis but first you must fully deplete glycogen stores so, to go from carb-rich diet to a keto-state requires at least 4 days! 

 

Most people who think they have arrived in a keto state after fasting for 48 hours when starting from a carb-rich diet are NOT even in a ketogenic state at this point.  Of course, they will feel like crap at this stage. For the body to be full adapted to using fat as fuel efficiently requires at least seven days.  And then, if you are an athlete, you have to train for weeks in a keto-adapted state to adapt to performance stress before the ability to switch from carbs to fat as a primary fuel source become optimal.   

 

For those who reach this final stage, it means they can tap into the stored energy of body fat effortlessly.  It means less reliance on things like sports gels to avoid "bonking", and for all intents and purposes, it means far greater energy even when carbs have been exhausted.

 

More elite endurance athletes are emerging with claims that keto-adaptation enables them to perform more efficiently than their carb-dependent peers.  Examples include Chris Froome, the winner of the Tour deFrance in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014.  Probably one of the biggest, and most vocal proponents is Sami Inkinen, one of the world’s most accomplished endurance athlete who switched over from carb-rich diet to a ketogenic diet when he was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic.  The remarkable Ultra-marathon Runner Timothy Olson is another incredible example.

 

The classic science-based study that supports the potential of keto-adaptation is the one mentioned in the video; Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite artistic gymnasts that was published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition  (https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-9-34).  If you've ever watched a gymnast performing an "iron cross" you know that gymnastics requires incredible strength in addition to endurance.

 

Becoming optimally fat-adapted does not mean one must be in ketosis 100% of the time; it simply means that the body's metabolism has to be trained to be able to quickly switch to burning fat when the need arises.

 

Keto-adapatation is actually a return to a more natural nutritional state.  Keto was likely the default human metabolic state over the past 2.5 million years of human evolution. Only with the extremely recent (on the evolutionary timeline) advent of civilization have we been stuffing our faces with carbs and snuffing out our magnificent ability to generate ketones as a clean-burning alternative fuel source to dietary carbohydrates.  IMHO there is actually nothing unnatural, unsafe, or inefficient with being keto-adapted.

[robblok]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I understand that the Keto concept has become a matter of some dispute in the fitness world, as high calorie burning folks have a hard time embracing the idea that they can benefit from consuming fewer calories and rejecting the obsession with immediate refueling to restore glycogen after vigorous workouts.

 

Firstly, "keto" does not mean one is in ketosis 100% of the time; rather it mean that the body has been optimally adapted (trained) to use stored body fat as a primary fuel source when the need arises.  The average person who relies on carbohydrates as a primary fuel source looses this ability.

 

The question is not really whether carbs or fat are a better primary fuel source; it is a matter of how effectively the body can shift from carbs to fats as a primary fuel source.  That is what keto-adaptation is really all about.  Most people who have an issue with "keto" do not understand the difference between being in a keto-state and being keto-adapted.  There is a big difference!  What's more, most people you think they have tried keto with a 48 hour fast, actually have not even reached a keto-state!

 

It may only take 72 hours to be in a state of ketosis but first you must fully deplete glycogen stores so, to go from carb-rich diet to a keto-state requires at least 4 days! 

 

Most people who think they have arrived in a keto state after fasting for 48 hours when starting from a carb-rich diet are NOT even in a ketogenic state at this point.  Of course, they will feel like crap at this stage. For the body to be full adapted to using fat as fuel efficiently requires at least seven days.  And then, if you are an athlete, you have to train for weeks in a keto-adapted state to adapt to performance stress before the ability to switch from carbs to fat as a primary fuel source become optimal.   

 

For those who reach this final stage, it means they can tap into the stored energy of body fat effortlessly.  It means less reliance on things like sports gels to avoid "bonking", and for all intents and purposes, it means far greater energy even when carbs have been exhausted.

 

More elite endurance athletes are emerging with claims that keto-adaptation enables them to perform more efficiently than their carb-dependent peers.  Examples include Chris Froome, the winner of the Tour deFrance in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014.  Probably one of the biggest, and most vocal proponents is Sami Inkinen, one of the world’s most accomplished endurance athlete who switched over from carb-rich diet to a ketogenic diet when he was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic.  The remarkable Ultra-marathon Runner Timothy Olson is another incredible example.

 

The classic science-based study that supports the potential of keto-adaptation is the one mentioned in the video; Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite artistic gymnasts that was published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition  (https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-9-34).  If you've ever watched a gymnast performing an "iron cross" you know that gymnastics requires incredible strength in addition to endurance.

 

Becoming optimally fat-adapted does not mean one must be in ketosis 100% of the time; it simply means that the body's metabolism has to be trained to be able to quickly switch to burning fat when the need arises.

 

Keto-adapatation is actually a return to a more natural nutritional state.  Keto was likely the default human metabolic state over the past 2.5 million years of human evolution. Only with the extremely recent (on the evolutionary timeline) advent of civilization have we been stuffing our faces with carbs and snuffing out our magnificent ability to generate ketones as a clean-burning alternative fuel source to dietary carbohydrates.  IMHO there is actually nothing unnatural, unsafe, or inefficient with being keto-adapted.

Lets put it this way, for my sports keto is NOT a good thing, duration sports even gymnasts do not do the same thing as weightlifters.

 

I trust the leading strength coaches more then what you post here. They have all come back from KETO for muscle building. They still see it as a good tool for fat loss. For muscle building its inferior it can be done but not as good.

 

I read a lot of posts from those famous strength coaches and the archive goes back years, first everyone was raving about keto and then slowly but surely they all got back to the normal way as carbs were just superior (for bodybuilding and weight lifting). These are the people who train movie-stars and professional athletes. They would always go for what is best. 

 

There is a reason why bodybuilders inject insulin (not that I would ever do that) to gain more muscle. Keto is nice for fat loss, but even then it does not beat normal diets for athletes. It does beat it for sedentary people. (because of insulin problems) people who work out a lot don't have that problem as workouts have great effect on how your insulin works.

 

Your story about keto being normal is a bit controversial

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/early-humans-ate-carbs_n_55ccd1fde4b0898c4886c948

[WaveHunter]

29 minutes ago, robblok said:

Lets put it this way, for my sports keto is NOT a good thing, duration sports even gymnasts do not do the same thing as weightlifters.

 

I trust the leading strength coaches more then what you post here. They have all come back from KETO for muscle building. They still see it as a good tool for fat loss. For muscle building its inferior it can be done but not as good.

 

I read a lot of posts from those famous strength coaches and the archive goes back years, first everyone was raving about keto and then slowly but surely they all got back to the normal way as carbs were just superior (for bodybuilding and weight lifting). These are the people who train movie-stars and professional athletes. They would always go for what is best. 

 

There is a reason why bodybuilders inject insulin (not that I would ever do that) to gain more muscle. Keto is nice for fat loss, but even then it does not beat normal diets for athletes. It does beat it for sedentary people. (because of insulin problems) people who work out a lot don't have that problem as workouts have great effect on how your insulin works.

 

Your story about keto being normal is a bit controversial

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/early-humans-ate-carbs_n_55ccd1fde4b0898c4886c948

I guess it all depends on what your goals are.  If putting on muscle is your goal, I agree that keto is probably not the best way to do that.  My comments were based more on performance athletes, like the ones I mentioned, where endurance is the goal.  It's not all about athletics though.  More importantly it's about good health, specifically, good metabolic health.

 

I do believe in fact that keto is a more "normal" way when it comes to nutrition, and when you view things on an evolutionary scale  I knew that was a controversial remark when I made it but I think people today eat vastly way too much carbohydrate foods, and not the good ones either, but ones with a HUGE glycemic load, and ones that are hugely made with high fructose corn syrups (practically everything you buy on the shelves in supermarkets these days). 

 

And BTW, I think it's even worse here in Thailand!  Go into any Tesco or Foodland, and there are very few alternatives to carb-based foods.  Go into 7-11 and there are absolutely none!  Thai people are increasingly going for Western style foods. KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) is a big hit with Thai kids these days!  I think there are going to be some VERY fat Thai people as these kids start to grow up.   

 

There is no question at all that there is an obesity epidemic today that did not exist 30 years ago.  That is attributable to heavily processed foods containing excessive carbs, pure and simple!  Nobody can argue with that.  Embracing Keto is a key to reversing that.  I'm not saying you have to be a Keto maniac like some gurus on YouTube advocate, but cutting carbs drastically, especially high glycemic ones is not at all too radical a thing to do.

 

What really kills me is what's happening to little kids these days.  They eat junk food snacks all through the day, stay indoors glued to their smart phone playing games, don't get enough exercise, and don't interact with others except through social media!  It's no surprise that for the first time in history, we're seeing diabetes type-2 in pre-teen kids, and it's fast becoming epidemic levels!  D-type-2 was unheard of in pre-teen kids 20 years ago!  Tell me that is not alarming! 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

I guess it all depends on what your goals are.  If putting on muscle is your goal, I agree that keto is probably not the best way to do that.  My comments were based more on performance athletes, like the ones I mentioned, where endurance is the goal.  

 

I do believe in fact that keto is a more "normal" way when it comes to nutrition.  I knew that was a controversial remark when I made it but I think people today eat vastly way too much carbohydrate foods, and not the good ones either, but ones with a HUGE glycemic load, and ones that are hugely made with high fructose corn syrups (practically everything you buy on the shelves in supermarkets these days).

 

There is no question at all that there is an obesity epidemic today that did not exist 30 years ago.  That is attributable to excessive carbs, pure and simple!  Nobody can argue with that.  Embracing Keto is a key to reversing that.  I'm not saying you have to be a Keto maniac like some gurus on YouTube advocate, but cutting carbs drastically, especially high glycemic ones is not at all too radical a thing to do.

 

What really kills me is what's happening to little kids these days.  They eat junk food snacks all through the day, stay indoors glued to their smart phone playing games, don't get enough exercise, and don't interact with others except through social media!  It's no surprise that for the first time in history, we're seeing diabetes type-2 in pre-teen kids, and it's fast becoming epidemic levels!  D-type-2 was unheard of in pre-teen kids 20 years ago!  Tell me that is not alarming! 

There is nothing wrong in cutting carbs I agree 100% that we eat too many. I just don't agree with cutting certain healthy unprocessed carbs. Cutting processed carbs go far it.

 

But did you read that article i posted... it kinda blows Paleo and Keto out of the water for being normal as it is so often touted. It seems humans at carbs long ago far longer as many Keto Guru's like us to believe.

 

According to Hardy's research team, the human brain uses 25 percent of the body's energy and 60 percent of the glucose available in the blood to function and grow. Connecting the fact that we need such high quantities, which are typically derived from carbohydrates, and the incredible expansion of brain size during our evolution, the researchers believe it's highly unlikely that we could have subsisted on a diet that lacked such resources during this critical time.

There is also biological evidence that the human body began developing additional amylase gene copies (one person can have up to 18 now) to access this form of nutrition more effectively. Primates only have two copies, so that means we completed this digestive evolution within the past 1 million years when we also had access to fire for cooking.

[WaveHunter]

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

There is nothing wrong in cutting carbs I agree 100% that we eat too many. I just don't agree with cutting certain healthy unprocessed carbs. Cutting processed carbs go far it.

 

But did you read that article i posted... it kinda blows Paleo and Keto out of the water for being normal as it is so often touted. It seems humans at carbs long ago far longer as many Keto Guru's like us to believe.

I did read it (even though I hate Huffington Post's selective editing of facts and mis-information in almost everything they post...JUST HATE THEM seriously Hahahah!).

 

I agree more or less with what they said but what they didn't mention is that the carbohydrates that early man ate are not at all what you're likely to find in your supermarket today, or in eateries like McDonalds or KFC.  I don't see how what they say in their article "blows Paleo and Keto out of the water".   Keto and paleo may refer to how people ate in the past both both nutritional strategies are firmly grounded in science for people living in today's world.

 

Nor do I agree that "Big brains need carbs" That is a scientific fallacy, not a scientific fact at all.  Numerous well-received, science-based studies have proven that carbohydrates are the only macronutrient NOT essential for survival.  You can't do without healthy fats or proteins but you can certainly live without carbohydrates; that is a proven fact.  If anyone disagrees, show me a science based study that proves otherwise.

 

I'm not saying that carbs are necessarily bad; obviously there are a lot of "good" carbs like many fruits and vegetables.  What I'm saying is that carbs in themselves are not essential for survival, or even for good health.  Micronutrients found in many carbs are essential though, so for their micronutrients, carbs are important but as a macronutrient, they are not.  Personally I would not want to live without them, but if you were forced to, your health would not suffer, even though the makers of processed foods would want you to believe otherwise. 

 

Remember the "food pyramid" of the 1970's...total BS!  Any clear thinking person today can appreciate how misleading it was.  I would go as far as saying that the USDA was influenced by the food industry in order to promote foods that were most profitable to the industry because if it were truly based on science, vegetables would have naturally been been the foundation.  What it proves is that you should never believe something just because some official organization like USDA (or publisher like Huffington Post) says that it is so.

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk or play devil's advocate.  Actually I wish you could believe what you read.  It would be nice if there was one place you could go on the web and get "the truth" but sadly almost every information source is suspect for promoting a hidden agenda.  In the end all you do is by like a courtroom jury and don't accept anything at face value irregardless of who is saying it, examine all points of views, and then make up your own mind.  Even then, you may not find the truth but at least you'll have done due-diligence. 

 

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I did read it (even though I hate Huffington Post's selective editing of facts and mis-information in almost everything they post...JUST HATE THEM seriously Hahahah!).

 

I agree more or less with what they said but what they didn't mention is that the carbohydrates that early man ate are not at all what you're likely to find in your supermarket today, or in eateries like McDonalds or KFC.  I don't see how what they say in their article "blows Paleo and Keto out of the water".   Keto and paleo may refer to how people ate in the past both both nutritional strategies are firmly grounded in science for people living in today's world.

 

Nor do I agree that "Big brains need carbs" That is a scientific fallacy, not a scientific fact at all.  Numerous well-received, science-based studies have proven that carbohydrates are the only macronutrient NOT essential for survival.  You can't do without healthy fats or proteins but you can certainly live without carbohydrates; that is a proven fact.  If anyone disagrees, show me a science based study that proves otherwise.

 

I'm not saying that carbs are necessarily bad; obviously there are a lot of "good" carbs like many fruits and vegetables.  What I'm saying is that carbs in themselves are not essential for survival, or even for good health.  Micronutrients found in many carbs are essential though, so for their micronutrients, carbs are important but as a macronutrient, they are not.  Personally I would not want to live without them, but if you were forced to, your health would not suffer, even though the makers of processed foods would want you to believe otherwise. 

 

Remember the "food pyramid" of the 1970's...total BS!  Any clear thinking person today can appreciate how misleading it was.  I would go as far as saying that the USDA was influenced by the food industry in order to promote foods that were most profitable to the industry because if it were truly based on science, vegetables would have naturally been been the foundation.  What it proves is that you should never believe something just because some official organization like USDA (or publisher like Huffington Post) says that it is so.

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk or play devil's advocate.  Actually I wish you could believe what you read.  It would be nice if there was one place you could go on the web and get "the truth" but sadly almost every information source is suspect for promoting a hidden agenda.  In the end all you do is by like a courtroom jury and don't accept anything at face value irregardless of who is saying it, examine all points of views, and then make up your own mind.  Even then, you may not find the truth but at least you'll have done due-diligence. 

 

The truth is not the same for everyone. As we said before for different goals there are different things we can do diet wise.

 

But almost everyone agrees that processed carbs are not good. I also wish that I know what the truth was or how much of a difference things actually make. 

 

I been reading some T nation articles and one clearly explained why keto is bad for building muscle.

 

Of course for 99% of the people here that is not important.

 

1. Keto lowers IGF-1 levels.

Why does this matter? IGF-1 is the most anabolic hormone in the body. The more you have, the more your cells (including the muscle cells) grow. The liver produces IGF-1 levels that go systemic.

The liver needs insulin and growth hormone to produce IGF-1. With keto dieting your insulin production is really low which means your IGF-1 levels will suffer. That's why keto has been considered something that could slow down cancer/tumor development, but that's also one of the reasons why it's not optimal for muscle growth.

 

2. Keto affects mTOR.

mTOR is an enzyme that speeds up cellular development and growth. This includes muscle cells. Muscle mTOR is activated in part by resistance training, but it's potentiated by some amino acids and carbs, or more precisely, insulin. If your insulin stays low, your mTOR activation is low. For that reason a keto diet can be inferior for muscle growth. But to play devil's advocate, it is one of the reasons why keto (and fasting) is being studied for potential anti-aging properties.

 

3. Keto is an issue for muscle contractions.

Ketones aren't as effective as glucose for very intense muscle contractions like those found during weight training. Ketones are better than fatty acids for sure, but not as good as glucose. So it could lower your work capacity or performance.

I'll be a good sport and stay that evidence points toward performance maintenance or even increase in endurance events. And you can maintain performance during lifting activities that rely mostly on the phosphagen (very intense efforts lasting less than 12 seconds).

 

4. Cortisol!

In many people a keto diet leads to higher cortisol levels. As a lifting enthusiast you already know that cortisol is bad for muscle growth. But do you know how bad chronically elevated cortisol really is? Here's how cortisol can slow muscle growth:

 

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/tip-4-reasons-keto-blows-for-building-muscle

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

The truth is not the same for everyone. As we said before for different goals there are different things we can do diet wise.

 

But almost everyone agrees that processed carbs are not good. I also wish that I know what the truth was or how much of a difference things actually make. 

 

I been reading some T nation articles and one clearly explained why keto is bad for building muscle.

 

Of course for 99% of the people here that is not important.

 

1. Keto lowers IGF-1 levels.

Why does this matter? IGF-1 is the most anabolic hormone in the body. The more you have, the more your cells (including the muscle cells) grow. The liver produces IGF-1 levels that go systemic.

The liver needs insulin and growth hormone to produce IGF-1. With keto dieting your insulin production is really low which means your IGF-1 levels will suffer. That's why keto has been considered something that could slow down cancer/tumor development, but that's also one of the reasons why it's not optimal for muscle growth.

 

2. Keto affects mTOR.

mTOR is an enzyme that speeds up cellular development and growth. This includes muscle cells. Muscle mTOR is activated in part by resistance training, but it's potentiated by some amino acids and carbs, or more precisely, insulin. If your insulin stays low, your mTOR activation is low. For that reason a keto diet can be inferior for muscle growth. But to play devil's advocate, it is one of the reasons why keto (and fasting) is being studied for potential anti-aging properties.

 

3. Keto is an issue for muscle contractions.

Ketones aren't as effective as glucose for very intense muscle contractions like those found during weight training. Ketones are better than fatty acids for sure, but not as good as glucose. So it could lower your work capacity or performance.

I'll be a good sport and stay that evidence points toward performance maintenance or even increase in endurance events. And you can maintain performance during lifting activities that rely mostly on the phosphagen (very intense efforts lasting less than 12 seconds).

 

4. Cortisol!

In many people a keto diet leads to higher cortisol levels. As a lifting enthusiast you already know that cortisol is bad for muscle growth. But do you know how bad chronically elevated cortisol really is? Here's how cortisol can slow muscle growth:

 

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/tip-4-reasons-keto-blows-for-building-muscle

I don't really like the term "Keto" anymore. Health gurus have butchered it to the point where its' most important aspects aren't even appreciated anymore.  For me, I actually think of my personal nutritional strategy as one comprised of a more or less balanced diet, but with only enough carbohydrates to support the strength-related physical activities I am engaged in at the time I am engaged in them, and only ones with a low-glycemic load, and comprised on non-processed food whenever possible.

 

When I'm not engaged in athletic activities I want my carb levels to be low enough so as to be in "soft" ketosis (i.e.: under 100 grams daily).  That combined with periodic water fasting (72 hours, once per month) is my own nutritional strategy.  It was difficult to do in the beginning but like most things, you get used to it, and now I feel no deprivation, and in fact feel very good on a day-to-day basis.  No real hunger pangs through the day (one meal per day), no yearnings (except for McDonalds once in a while LOL) and the best part is that I wake up every morning feeling totally refreshed, which used to not be the case.

 

It's important to realize that "Keto" and fasting have a very synergistic relationship.  The sum is much greater than the individual parts but even more importantly, one without the other is highly ineffective.  That is to say, there are certain aspects of ketogenic nutrition that rely on periodically being in a fasted state, and at the same time there are negative aspects of being in a fasted state that are offset by following up with a sound ketogenic nutritional strategy. 

 

One aspect that's overlooked in regard to fasting is that growth hormone is increased markedly (not decreased) as a result of the fast.  Hartman et showed a 5 fold increase in HGH in response to a 2 day fast. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1548337.  In another example; In 1982, Kerndt et al published a study of a single patient who decided to undergo a 40-day fast for religious purposes.   His HGH started at 0.73 and peaked at 9.86. That is a 1,250% increase in growth hormone.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6758355

 

In regard to inhibition of mTOR as you mentioned; it's true that while in the fasted state that could indeed be problematic for muscle growth.  But when you end a fast properly (i.e.: refeed your body with the proper macronutrients), mTOR quickly return to normal and the body is able to utilize the incredibly higher HGH levels produced by the fast to actually cause accelerated levels of protein synthesis.  So, it's entirely possible for the fast to indirectly lead to MORE muscle mass in the long run, not less!

 

Fasting and a smart "low carb" diet work together in a sort of "Ying/Yang" fashion for me.  At least that's how I view it.  I've tried all sort of nutritional strategies, some of which have been wacky and some pretty mainstream.  What I've found out for myself is that low carb as I've described coupled with periodic fasting work for me.  I get the feeling the the sum is greater than the parts, so to speak.

 

I am not advocating "my" approach to anyone else.  I think everybody has to find the right fit for themselves.  None of these health gurus on YouTube or the net, nobody on forums such as this one or T-Nation, not even your doctor can tell you what is right for "you".  Every individual has to discover it for themselves.  It's a matter of painstaking trial and error unfortunately.  But I guess it's worth it for those who really care about living a healthy happy life.  "No Pain, No Gain" as they say ????

 

 

 

[WaveHunter]

LOL...made a quotation mistake in above-post when I wrote "The sum is much greater than the individual parts".

 

I meant to say:  ..."The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts"...

 

[WaveHunter]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

The truth is not the same for everyone. As we said before for different goals there are different things we can do diet wise.

 

But almost everyone agrees that processed carbs are not good. I also wish that I know what the truth was or how much of a difference things actually make. 

 

I been reading some T nation articles and one clearly explained why keto is bad for building muscle.

 

Of course for 99% of the people here that is not important.

 

1. Keto lowers IGF-1 levels.

Why does this matter? IGF-1 is the most anabolic hormone in the body. The more you have, the more your cells (including the muscle cells) grow. The liver produces IGF-1 levels that go systemic.

The liver needs insulin and growth hormone to produce IGF-1. With keto dieting your insulin production is really low which means your IGF-1 levels will suffer. That's why keto has been considered something that could slow down cancer/tumor development, but that's also one of the reasons why it's not optimal for muscle growth.

 

2. Keto affects mTOR.

mTOR is an enzyme that speeds up cellular development and growth. This includes muscle cells. Muscle mTOR is activated in part by resistance training, but it's potentiated by some amino acids and carbs, or more precisely, insulin. If your insulin stays low, your mTOR activation is low. For that reason a keto diet can be inferior for muscle growth. But to play devil's advocate, it is one of the reasons why keto (and fasting) is being studied for potential anti-aging properties.

 

3. Keto is an issue for muscle contractions.

Ketones aren't as effective as glucose for very intense muscle contractions like those found during weight training. Ketones are better than fatty acids for sure, but not as good as glucose. So it could lower your work capacity or performance.

I'll be a good sport and stay that evidence points toward performance maintenance or even increase in endurance events. And you can maintain performance during lifting activities that rely mostly on the phosphagen (very intense efforts lasting less than 12 seconds).

 

4. Cortisol!

In many people a keto diet leads to higher cortisol levels. As a lifting enthusiast you already know that cortisol is bad for muscle growth. But do you know how bad chronically elevated cortisol really is? Here's how cortisol can slow muscle growth:

 

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/tip-4-reasons-keto-blows-for-building-muscle

Just want to add...high IGF-1 and highly activated mTOR are not necessarily a good thing overall.  High carb diets will shoot both through the roof.  It might seem that if High levels of HGH are a good thing, so is high IGF-1, but that's not true.  Even though one is a precursor of the other, they are actually quite different.  High HGH levels will actually result form fasting, whereas high levels of IGF-1 will result from high insulin levels.  High insulin levels will activate mTOR and keep it activated far longer than is optimal or healthy. 

 

In a ketogenic diet you can get all of the protein your body needs without spiking insulin and therefore only activating mTOR briefly.  mTOR is activated by insulin (in a high carb diet) and and also by leucine (in a ketogenic diet).  Leucine, a ketogenic amino acid activates it in a very transitory fashion (i.e.: 30-40 minutes) whereas insulin activates it in a much more prolonged way.  It's only necessary to briefly activate it (for minutes) , not have it turned on for hours, as is the case if activated by insulin.

 

You really do not want mTOR activated all the time, nor do you want it deactivated all the time.  The ideal is for it to be cyclically activated.  In somebody practicing a IF type of ketogenic diet, in the 8 hour eating window they might be triggering mTOR (primarily from leucine, not insulin) twice a day and in the 16 hour window between eating, mTOR would be turned off.  That is preferable to having mTOR turned on constantly due to high insulin levels of a high carb mixed diet.   

 

The same is true with IGF-1.  High levels of IGF-1 is not a good thing.  It is necessary for growth but natural conversion of IGF1 from HGH only occurs in small bursts.  Too high a level is associated with high insulin levels and many poor health outcomes.  IGF-1 will spike and levels will rise too high from high carb diets.  Typically IGF1 averages at about 200-210 ng/ml but optimally it should be lower (around 100-120 ng/dl) Ideally it should remain relatively flat and will do so if insulin is not allowed to spike.

[robblok]

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Just want to add...high IGF-1 and highly activated mTOR are not necessarily a good thing overall.  High carb diets will shoot both through the roof.  It might seem that if High levels of HGH are a good thing, so is high IGF-1, but that's not true.  Even though one is a precursor of the other, they are actually quite different.  High HGH levels will actually result form fasting, whereas high levels of IGF-1 will result from high insulin levels.  High insulin levels will activate mTOR and keep it activated far longer than is optimal or healthy. 

 

In a ketogenic diet you can get all of the protein your body needs without spiking insulin and therefore only activating mTOR briefly.  mTOR is activated by insulin (in a high carb diet) and and also by leucine (in a ketogenic diet).  Leucine, a ketogenic amino acid activates it in a very transitory fashion (i.e.: 30-40 minutes) whereas insulin activates it in a much more prolonged way.  It's only necessary to briefly activate it (for minutes) , not have it turned on for hours, as is the case if activated by insulin.

 

You really do not want mTOR activated all the time, nor do you want it deactivated all the time.  The ideal is for it to be cyclically activated.  In somebody practicing a IF type of ketogenic diet, in the 8 hour eating window they might be triggering mTOR (primarily from leucine, not insulin) twice a day and in the 16 hour window between eating, mTOR would be turned off.  That is preferable to having mTOR turned on constantly due to high insulin levels of a high carb mixed diet.   

 

The same is true with IGF-1.  High levels of IGF-1 is not a good thing.  It is necessary for growth but natural conversion of IGF1 from HGH only occurs in small bursts.  Too high a level is associated with high insulin levels and many poor health outcomes.  IGF-1 will spike and levels will rise too high from high carb diets.  Typically IGF1 averages at about 200-210 ng/ml but optimally it should be lower (around 100-120 ng/dl) Ideally it should remain relatively flat and will do so if insulin is not allowed to spike.

This was about KETO not a fast, a fast will mean carbs again keto means no carbs. 

 

Of course you don't want high IGF-1 all the time but with KETO its low all the time unless you take carbs. Fasting is different you eat carbs again after a fast.

 

That is why keto is NOT good you need the carbs around your workout to spike IGF1 an HGH levels and your MTOR. With keto you get hanged quartered if you only suggest carbs. The bodybuilders from now suggest carbs around workouts and not too much on non workout days. They actually adise you to center it around training. So they found a far BETTER way then keto.

 

But only for building muscle.  I still think its superior to KETO as its just stupid to cut out carbs as a whole (fruits for instance). Carbs are useful and can help a lot when used sensible. Keto is just to extreme IMHO.

 

That is why the people who know how to get great bodies and burn fat (the top paying strength coaches) Advise people to use carbs but not overuse them. That holds huge advantages over KETO for muscle building. 

 

Fat loss wise because your not that high in carbs it goes good too, so why go for the inferior KETO when you can have the best of both worlds. 

 

Unless of course you have other health issues. Many of them certainly shifted away from massive carb fests but shifted away from Keto too, to a more successful less extreme approach. 

 

This is for people wanting to build muscle and look good, not for sedentary people they do great on Keto. 

[robblok]

That is what i got against keto its too extreme, the people from the sports industry know that carbs are not evil unless, huge amounts, and unprocessed. 

 

Even processed carbs are useful for some bodybuilders like taking a bit of fructose after a workout to spike insulin with their shake.

 

If you don't take to many carbs and center them around certain times (more of course then keto) Like for instance my 100 grams of spaghetti before a training session. They will do you far more good (as someone who wants muscle and performance) then Keto. 

 

Also by condemning carbs you remove fruits from the equation that is bad too. 

 

So IMHO keto is too restrictive. It certainly is good for mindless drones who can't decide for themselves when to take carbs and what kind of carbs. Its also good for sedentary people but for those with a little knowledge they can use carbs to their advantage and gain lean muscle mass. 

 

 

But basically for people with little knowledge and who are not exercising Keto is great.

 

Keto is also good as a kick start to change your way of life going from a bad diet to good.

 

Its just not optimal in every situation and that is what I rally against.

 

You won't get ANY argument that the majority of people should eat a lot less carbs and a lot less processed carbs. 

 

For those who exercise and want optimal results carbs are a weapon to be used to gain muscle and lose fat. (talking here about weight lifting and sorts for endurance there is no real need)

 

Plus don't forget not everyone responds the same to a diet.

 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

That is what i got against keto its too extreme, the people from the sports industry know that carbs are not evil unless, huge amounts, and unprocessed. 

 

Even processed carbs are useful for some bodybuilders like taking a bit of fructose after a workout to spike insulin with their shake.

 

If you don't take to many carbs and center them around certain times (more of course then keto) Like for instance my 100 grams of spaghetti before a training session. They will do you far more good (as someone who wants muscle and performance) then Keto. 

 

Also by condemning carbs you remove fruits from the equation that is bad too. 

 

So IMHO keto is too restrictive. It certainly is good for mindless drones who can't decide for themselves when to take carbs and what kind of carbs. Its also good for sedentary people but for those with a little knowledge they can use carbs to their advantage and gain lean muscle mass. 

 

 

But basically for people with little knowledge and who are not exercising Keto is great.

 

Keto is also good as a kick start to change your way of life going from a bad diet to good.

 

Its just not optimal in every situation and that is what I rally against.

 

You won't get ANY argument that the majority of people should eat a lot less carbs and a lot less processed carbs. 

 

For those who exercise and want optimal results carbs are a weapon to be used to gain muscle and lose fat. (talking here about weight lifting and sorts for endurance there is no real need)

 

Plus don't forget not everyone responds the same to a diet.

 

I think we’re both saying the same thing but in a slightly different way.  

 

The way I see it carbs definitely have their place in a individuals nutrition, but the population as a whole consumes far too many.  Even athletes overdo it in a big way.  

 

As you mentioned,  carbs serve a purpose if they are centered around physical activities that require high energy output, but most people makes carbs their primary macronutrient.  They don’t just use them to fuel their body, they graze on them throughout the day.  Therefore, their insulin output is continual and at very high levels 24/7.  At its extreme, the body becomes desensitized to insulin, and the result is Diabetes type 2.

 

My view is that carbs serve a purpose but not 24/7.  When carbs are not necessary for specific high output energy then it makes sense to limit them to the point where insulin levels drop enough for mTOR to be switched off, and for ketone bodies to be produced, thereby adapting the body to use fat as fuel.  The body needs to “learn” to do this.  It takes time to adapt to using fat as fuel efficiently.  

 

You might consider this this to be extreme but my view is that it is a good thing to stress the body like this.  It allows the body to better adapt to using stored fat as fuel.  I think this is useful because there will always be times when glycogen stores become low or even depleted when engaged in extreme physical activities (even if you had a big spaghetti meal prior to a race for instance).

 

For the non fat-adapted individual, the result will be to “bonk”.  For the fat-adapted individual, they will be able to utilize fatty acids and continue on.  That is how keto is being used increasingly by athletes.