I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

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

My point was that keto and fasting are the same thing in that they are both about the production of ketone bodies and the ability to access stored fat as fuel, and most importantly To keep insulin levels low and stable.

 

Keto does not mean “no carbs again” in my view.  It means carbs only as short-term high energy fuel for specific high-energy activity.  

 

That is the only situation where carbs are of value.  At any other times, they serve no purpose, and it is better to limit them to the point where the the body is burning stored fat, primarily because insulin levels remain low and stable. 

 

Basically im saying use carbs only when you need them, otherwise it just makes more sense to be in a soft keto state.

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

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.

Yes we are saying the same thing and what your describing is what i do. Its actually the thing that many of the coaches advise. They stress its important to have a flexible metabolism that can switch from one fuel to the other. 

 

There are of course people even athletes that eat too much carbs.  I really try to limit them around my training times and that is it. I just had my 100 grams of macaroni and a nice sauce with some pork tenderloin in it. In about an hour ill be doing a workout session. Maybe an hour and a half (depending on my stomachs i hate training when i feel full).

 

Might take some proteins before though the meat should have provided enough.

 

I almost take no carbs on non training days (i consider the loaded carries non training days though they certainly are heavy. My whole traps are swollen and stiff today).

 

Basically I do a full body program 3 days a week and all other days I do loaded carries. If that is not enough to keep me losing fat, I will add steady state cardio. But so far no need for that yet. The loaded carries are about 20 minutes of workout.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

My point was that keto and fasting are the same thing in that they are both about the production of ketone bodies and the ability to access stored fat as fuel.  

 

Keto does not mean “no carbs again” in my view.  It means carbs only as short-term high energy fuel for specific high-energy activity.  

 

That is the only situation where carbs are of value.  At any other times, they serve no purpose, and it is better to limit them to the point where the the body is burning stored fat, primarily because insulin levels remain low and stable. 

I agree, but I don't stress out too much if i take carbs at other times because there will always be times it happens. Diet is easy when your home but if traveling its harder. 

 

Right now as you know I in fat loss mode, once out of it i would worry less about the carbs. I would still avoid them but I would not start pulling my hairs out if I eat them because there is nothing else to eat at that point.

 

Strict is one thing.. too strict an other.

[WaveHunter]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes we are saying the same thing and what your describing is what i do. Its actually the thing that many of the coaches advise. They stress its important to have a flexible metabolism that can switch from one fuel to the other. 

 

There are of course people even athletes that eat too much carbs.  I really try to limit them around my training times and that is it. I just had my 100 grams of macaroni and a nice sauce with some pork tenderloin in it. In about an hour ill be doing a workout session. Maybe an hour and a half (depending on my stomachs i hate training when i feel full).

 

Might take some proteins before though the meat should have provided enough.

 

I almost take no carbs on non training days (i consider the loaded carries non training days though they certainly are heavy. My whole traps are swollen and stiff today).

 

Basically I do a full body program 3 days a week and all other days I do loaded carries. If that is not enough to keep me losing fat, I will add steady state cardio. But so far no need for that yet. The loaded carries are about 20 minutes of workout.

So, then you are a keto guy ????. Seriously, most of the keto gurus are full of sh*t.  Anything practiced to extremes is not good.  That’s why I said I’d like to find another term for what I view as “Keto” because gurus have made that term so extreme and rediculous that most people miss the most important aspects of it.

 

I think my primary nutritional concern is to avoid disease that is metabolic-based.  When you really think about it, most of the ills of our modern world are based in poor nutrition.  By poor nutrition, the single greatest factor is excessive carbohydrates IMHO.

 

Personally I don’t think that keto-adaptation is too extreme.  If you’ve lived your whole life fueling your body only on carbs, it takes time to train the body to use stored fats as fuel efficiently.

 

That’s all “keto” is IMO.  It’s not a replacement for carbs at all.

[WaveHunter]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

I agree, but I don't stress out too much if i take carbs at other times because there will always be times it happens. Diet is easy when your home but if traveling its harder. 

 

Right now as you know I in fat loss mode, once out of it i would worry less about the carbs. I would still avoid them but I would not start pulling my hairs out if I eat them because there is nothing else to eat at that point.

 

Strict is one thing.. too strict an other.

Totally agree about not being too strict.  I’m the first to admit I often fall off the bank wagon.  I’m not ashamed to admit a weakness for McDonalds (a veritable carb candy store) every once in a while.  

 

But, I think you have to have firm and well thought out nutritional guidelines that you do your best to adhere to most of the time.  

 

Most people do not.  Instead, they’re constantly consuming carbs and flitting from one fad diet to the next, and then wondering why their belly is expanding, and ultimately being shocked when their doctor informs them they are diabetic.

[WaveHunter]

FYI, I am starting a special water fast today.  I normally do a 72 hour water fast at the end of every month, but today I’m starting a longer water fast...for 5 days, and perhaps may extend it if things go well!  It’s sort of an experiment, plus I’ve really been sedentary the last few weeks so need a jump-start to get back on track.

 

I will be carefully tracking metabolic markers with my new body composition scale.  Just really curious how an extended fast effects these numbers and how accurate they seem to be. 

 

I also am going to try and see how active I can be once I reach full ketosis.  Normally I try to just relax and take it easy on a fast, but theoretically once in full ketosis (after 72 hours), the body should be capable of moderate physical activity (i.e.: maybe 200 watts) so I want to find out first-hand.

 

I want to document metabolic changes that occur with the following markers:

• Body weight
• BMI
• Fat-Free Body Weight
• Protein
• Visceral Fat
• Muscle Mass
• Bone Mass
• Body Fat
• Body Water
• BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)
• Subcutaneous Fat
• Metabolic Age
• Bike ride maximum watts and heart rate for 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour (if I don't collapse LOL).  Never tried this before but theoretically it should work.

 

[robblok]

36 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Totally agree about not being too strict.  I’m the first to admit I often fall off the bank wagon.  I’m not ashamed to admit a weakness for McDonalds (a veritable carb candy store) every once in a while.  

 

But, I think you have to have firm and well thought out nutritional guidelines that you do your best to adhere to most of the time.  

 

Most people do not.  Instead, they’re constantly consuming carbs and flitting from one fad diet to the next, and then wondering why their belly is expanding, and ultimately being shocked when their doctor informs them they are diabetic.

Last year i fell of for a long period, first time in years. All because of sleeping. Had some problems again last week so i felt like a zombie. Last night went to bed real early and took some anti histamine and slept for 11 hours. (waking up a few times) But today 100% good again.

 

Sleep is my Achilles heel, i feel so bad if that goes wrong. 

 

Anyway most of the time I am pretty consistent but i try to find ways of training and eating that are doable, so i can keep doing it. That is why I don't like extremes. Sometimes i go to extremes but for a short period, as I said if the fat does not go down I will add cardio.. but I hate it and know it would not be a long term solution. 

[robblok]

28 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

FYI, I am starting a special water fast today.  I normally do a 72 hour water fast at the end of every month, but today I’m starting a longer water fast...for 5 days, and perhaps may extend it if things go well!  It’s sort of an experiment, plus I’ve really been sedentary the last few weeks so need a jump-start to get back on track.

 

I will be carefully tracking metabolic markers with my new body composition scale.  Just really curious how an extended fast effects these numbers and how accurate they seem to be. 

 

I also am going to try and see how active I can be once I reach full ketosis.  Normally I try to just relax and take it easy on a fast, but theoretically once in full ketosis (after 72 hours), the body should be capable of moderate physical activity (i.e.: maybe 200 watts) so I want to find out first-hand.

 

I want to document metabolic changes that occur with the following markers:

• Body weight
• BMI
• Fat-Free Body Weight
• Protein
• Visceral Fat
• Muscle Mass
• Bone Mass
• Body Fat
• Body Water
• BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)
• Subcutaneous Fat
• Metabolic Age
• Bike ride maximum watts and heart rate for 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour (if I don't collapse LOL).  Never tried this before but theoretically it should work.

 

Love to hear how that goes. Keep us updated.

[WaveHunter]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

Love to hear how that goes. Keep us updated.

Will do; I am going to document it in detail.  Never have really done this before but with all the parameters that new scale records, I'm really curious to see how they respond.  Should be interesting ????

 

[WaveHunter]

On 4/1/2019 at 1:21 PM, WaveHunter said:

Just keep in mind that “normal” levels of testosterone and “optimal” levels can be considered two different things entirely.  Consider this chart:

It shows the Total Testosterone levels of men in the bottom five and ten percentiles as well as the Testosterone levels of the men in the top 95%.  It's based on a general male population cross-sectional study I found.  Naturally, I shoot for the 95th percentile. ????

 

Also note that “testosterone pills” are a scam.  The only effective delivery mode is injectable, or transdermal (though vastly less effective than injectable).

Made a big mistake in this post and I stand corrected; while the vast majority of "testosterone pills" are indeed a scam, there are two that are legit though IMHO are not as effective as injectable.  They are both undecanoate type of testosterone, Andriol and Jatenzo.

[WaveHunter]

52 minutes ago, robblok said:

Last year i fell of for a long period, first time in years. All because of sleeping. Had some problems again last week so i felt like a zombie. Last night went to bed real early and took some anti histamine and slept for 11 hours. (waking up a few times) But today 100% good again.

 

Sleep is my Achilles heel, i feel so bad if that goes wrong. 

 

Anyway most of the time I am pretty consistent but i try to find ways of training and eating that are doable, so i can keep doing it. That is why I don't like extremes. Sometimes i go to extremes but for a short period, as I said if the fat does not go down I will add cardio.. but I hate it and know it would not be a long term solution. 

I can sympathize!  I go through phases where sleeping is an issue.  Nothing worse than laying in bed, unable to fall asleep with your eyes wide open as the sun starts to light up your bedroom and you hear the birds starting to chirp...I hate it!  Unfortunately I don't think there is any effective remedy except waiting for it to pass...or Ambien LOL! 

 

I tried to deal with it using Ambien once.  It absolutely works like a charm but looses its' effectiveness after perhaps a week of use, and then it's very easy to start abusing it, taking higher doses, quickly habituating to higher dose, and then taking even higher doses.  Even worse, it makes you feel VERY good, and a lot of people end up turning on the TV and staying up just to enjoy the "high"!  It's a very slippery slope and doesn't end well for a lot of people. 

 

Ambien IS very effective though for dealing with time zone changes when traveling (jet lag).  Military pilots are regularly prescribed ambien when flying combat missions since the need to quickly adapt to changing time zones is critical to performance. 

[grifbel]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Military pilots are regularly prescribed ambien when flying combat missions

Highly doubt this...falling asleep while flying a mission is probably not a great idea!????????

[WaveHunter]

19 hours ago, grifbel said:

Highly doubt this...falling asleep while flying a mission is probably not a great idea!????????

OMG Not for use when they are actually piloting an aircraft LOL!.  

 

Zolpidem (Ambien) is regularly prescribed to fighter pilots ferrying their aircraft to overseas war theaters so they can quickly change their sleep patterns BEFORE/AFTER long flights in order to avoid jet lag.  It’s only for fighter pilots since larger transport planes can have relief crew, and only fighter pilots must have maximum alertness immediately upon arrival.  Google it if you don’t believe me.

 

Equally surprising (shocking), they are also prescribed amphetamines to use DURING such long ferrying flights to maintain alertness during air-to-air refueling!  It’s a FACT.

[robblok]

@WaveHunter,

 

How is the fast going ?

 

Just some remarks about your scales (soon to have the same). I don't believe the metabolic rate and stuff, its all just a general formula that you can find on the internet. Its not an actual real figure. That can only be done by scientist with special equipment. It would be nice if scales could do the trick.

 

The formula is on the internet available and I am sure the scales just follow that formula. Maybe I am wrong but to be honest I don't think so.

 

For me things are progressing since i smashed the platteau, I might actually reach my goal in 1 month. Maybe it will take me two months I am not sure. I do know that between slim and lean there is a huge difference. My belt tels me I am at the slimmest I have been so far. Scales tell me I am at a higher weight (so that means more muscle). I will still try to lose between 3 and 5 kg (3 kg might be possible in a month given the rate its going at this moment if I don't hit an other platteau) 

[TravelerEastWest]

This thread is very interesting and my thanks to the posters.

 

I am not an MD or research Ph.D. so I have a difficult time understanding the research out there. I barely survived statistics in grad school, and you need a solid grounding in statistics to even start to understand some of these studies.

 

Dr. Gregor who wrote How not to die is my go-to source for science backed research. I also have a friend who is an MD and research Ph.D. who has not said he is 100% certain about the whole plant-based low-fat diet but is leaning in that direction.

 

I see lots of smart people arguing both sides of the fence - fat or carbs?

 

One thing that makes reading books and watching videos difficult is that often both sides are correct but sometimes incomplete...

 

As an example, low carbs can certainly help those with diabetes - quickly reduce glucose levels, etc.; but they don't help with insulin resistance while a whole plant based diet does help with insulin resistance.

 

But there is a shortage of long term studies with large groups on the effects of low carb diets, and some studies show all causes of mortality goes up long term with low carb diets.

 

So, in the end, some experimenting needs to be done for each person to see what works best.

 

For me a whole plant-based diet low fat with mild exercise 6 or 7 days a week works well and I have diabetes and have had it for a very long time.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, TravelerEastWest said:

This thread is very interesting and my thanks to the posters.

 

I am not an MD or research Ph.D. so I have a difficult time understanding the research out there. I barely survived statistics in grad school, and you need a solid grounding in statistics to even start to understand some of these studies.

 

Dr. Gregor who wrote How not to die is my go-to source for science backed research. I also have a friend who is an MD and research Ph.D. who has not said he is 100% certain about the whole plant-based low-fat diet but is leaning in that direction.

 

I see lots of smart people arguing both sides of the fence - fat or carbs?

 

One thing that makes reading books and watching videos difficult is that often both sides are correct but sometimes incomplete...

 

As an example, low carbs can certainly help those with diabetes - quickly reduce glucose levels, etc.; but they don't help with insulin resistance while a whole plant based diet does help with insulin resistance.

 

But there is a shortage of long term studies with large groups on the effects of low carb diets, and some studies show all causes of mortality goes up long term with low carb diets.

 

So, in the end, some experimenting needs to be done for each person to see what works best.

 

For me a whole plant-based diet low fat with mild exercise 6 or 7 days a week works well and I have diabetes and have had it for a very long time.

You expressed the situation perfectly!  Firstly, I also admire Gregor's work.  I don't agree with everything he says or that plant-based nutrition is ideal for everyone, but he usually presents a pretty transparent and relatively unbiased explanation to what he has to say.  In other words, he gives you enough science based information (not unsubstantiated guru-speak) that allows you to further explore and then make up your ow mind on what's best for you, not simply advocate one viewpoint or another.

 

Personally I've explored both sides of the coin.  That is, I've explored the idea of plant-based nutrition which does not really stress restricting carbs but seems very restrictive of animal based proteins and fats, and I've also also explored ketogenic nutrition which puts an emphasis on restricting carbs and basically dispels the myth that fats are necessarily bad for you.  I think elements of BOTH viewpoints have a lot of pros and cons.  If you consider ONLY science-based information and ignore the lunatic fringe (i.e.: YouTube nutrition gurus) what you quickly realize is that there is no single correct way to eat.  I think the best you can do is decide what's right for you.  

 

Being well-informed with science-based facts, not guru fiction is critical, but in the end I think you need to listen to your body, be attuned to it since no two persons are alike.  I think we need to appreciate that the body has an amazing ability to let you know what it needs and what it doesn't do well with.  The trick is picking up on the signals it sends you.

 

I also had to deal with diabetes (actually pre-diabetes).  That's what got me started with paying attention to nutrition.  When my doctor informed me that blood tests showed I was pre-diabetic,  he did not council me on nutrition at all; he simply whipped out his Rx pad and write me a prescription for Metformin! Worse yet, he said that it was a condition that would probably only worsen over time and that I simply had to accept that!

 

Luckily, I did not accept that, and instead started exploring poor nutrition as a possible root cause.  It astonished me that in this modern scientific world there are still two diametrically opposed views of what causes diabetes in nutritional terms.  One school of thought is that it is high dietary fat that leads to diabetes (Joel Fuhrman, et al), and the other is that high carbs are responsible (Dr. Jason Fung). 

 

Both sides defend their position fervently but and attack the opposing view but IMHO there's a LOT more science behind the notion that high dietary carbs are the real culprit.  The arguments for carbs being the culprit are based primarily on metabolic physiology and biochemistry whereas the ones for fat being the culprit are based more on anecdotal accounts and on on simplified notions like dietary fat gets into the blood stream and clogs metabolic receptors, with nothing scientific to back that up except for poorly conducted studies and a lot of half-truths.  The notion that dietary fat leads to stored fat in the liver and body just seems like nonsense to me!  I tried to be impartial when reading Fuhrman's books but it just did not ring true to me whereas the notion that high carbs leads to high insulin levels and spikes, and ultimately to desensitization, and that leads to energy being stored as fat which exacerbates the problem just makes more scientific sense.  There's a lot more to it thatn that of course, but I'm just trying to make a point.

 

All I can say is I chose to believe that high carbs was what was causing my condition.  My strategy was simply to banish processed sugar from my diet, and it worked, and only in a matter of weeks!  I had new blood tests run and when I went to consult with my doctor again, he didn't praise the results.  Instead hew said that he could no longer be my (former) doctor if I wasn't willing to follow his instructions and stick with high dosages of Metformin and an anti-statin. 

 

There is also an emerging third school of thought about nutrition and it has to do with therapeutic fasting, and I think there is a lot to it!  Again, I'm not talking about the YouTube gurus and dopey videos about loosing fantastic amounts of weight by fasting, nor am I talking of fasting for environmental detoxing, both of which are ridiculous IMHO.  What I am talking about are things related to fasting such as Autophagy (google Yoshinori Ohsumi, who was awarded the Nobel prize for his research into this, not the Youtube gurus).  One of the most well known proponents of science-based fasting is Dr. Jason Fung.  I won't say anything more except becoming familiar with his work is worthwhile.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that you have to figure out what is right for you through science-based sources, and then find a doctor who cares enough about his patient's health that he is a proactive doctor, not one that only waits for symptoms to develop and then treats the symptoms (not the root cause) with his prescription pad.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Again, I'm not talking about the YouTube gurus and dopey videos about loosing fantastic amounts of weight by fasting...

This is a rather puzzling statement. Are you suggesting there are more effective ways of losing weight than fasting? As I understand, it's not possible not to lose weight if you fast. The longer you fast, the more weight you lose. To not lose weight during fasting would be against the fundamental laws of physics.

 

I think the story of Angus Barbieri has been mentioned before in this thread. This is an amazing example of a fast which lasted 382 day and resulted in a weight loss of 125 kg. I'm not aware of any type of diet which would allow a person to lose 125 kg of body weight in a little over a year. However, this fast was supervised by doctors administering vitamins and minerals as required, and Angus did occasionally have cups of coffee, tea, and sparkling water, so one could argue it was not a 'completely' true, water-only, fast.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-true-story-of-a-man-who-survived-without-any-food-for-382-days
 

[FracturedRabbit]

46 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is a rather puzzling statement. Are you suggesting there are more effective ways of losing weight than fasting? As I understand, it's not possible not to lose weight if you fast. The longer you fast, the more weight you lose. To not lose weight during fasting would be against the fundamental laws of physics.

 

I think the story of Angus Barbieri has been mentioned before in this thread. This is an amazing example of a fast which lasted 382 day and resulted in a weight loss of 125 kg. I'm not aware of any type of diet which would allow a person to lose 125 kg of body weight in a little over a year. However, this fast was supervised by doctors administering vitamins and minerals as required, and Angus did occasionally have cups of coffee, tea, and sparkling water, so one could argue it was not a 'completely' true, water-only, fast.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-true-story-of-a-man-who-survived-without-any-food-for-382-days
 

It rather depends what you eat when you are not fasting! I fast for 18 hours a day, but when I eat I consume as much as I would if I were not fasting. Sure, if you fast for days on end your weight will drop; but if you practice therapeutic intermittent fasting then don't expect to lose weight (but do expect to feel good!).

[FracturedRabbit]

6 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

This thread is very interesting and my thanks to the posters.

 

I am not an MD or research Ph.D. so I have a difficult time understanding the research out there. I barely survived statistics in grad school, and you need a solid grounding in statistics to even start to understand some of these studies.

 

Dr. Gregor who wrote How not to die is my go-to source for science backed research. I also have a friend who is an MD and research Ph.D. who has not said he is 100% certain about the whole plant-based low-fat diet but is leaning in that direction.

 

I see lots of smart people arguing both sides of the fence - fat or carbs?

 

One thing that makes reading books and watching videos difficult is that often both sides are correct but sometimes incomplete...

 

As an example, low carbs can certainly help those with diabetes - quickly reduce glucose levels, etc.; but they don't help with insulin resistance while a whole plant based diet does help with insulin resistance.

 

But there is a shortage of long term studies with large groups on the effects of low carb diets, and some studies show all causes of mortality goes up long term with low carb diets.

 

So, in the end, some experimenting needs to be done for each person to see what works best.

 

For me a whole plant-based diet low fat with mild exercise 6 or 7 days a week works well and I have diabetes and have had it for a very long time.

Insulin resistance arises due to excessive sugar/carbohydrate intake over a period of time and can be tackled by reducing the intake of sugar/carbohydrates. If you eat a plant based diet high in fruit, root vegetables and other food with a high glycemic index; then you can end up with insulin resistance. If you eat any food (plant based or otherwise) which is low in carbohydrates/sugars and has a low glycemic index, you can manage insulin resistance. 
I was vegetarian for years and my diet unfortunately included a daily large fruit shake with bananas and other fruits. I also enjoyed ice cream, cakes and desserts. I ended up pre-diabetic and with heart disease.
I see daily reports of those who have put their diabetes into remission and no longer need medication using a low carb diet.
I have never seen a study showing all cause mortality going up with a low carb diet, please share.

 

Britain's worst rag, The Daily Mail, which usually publishes nonsense nutrition advice, has an article on how people are tackling diabetes with a low carb approach.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6916909/Delicious-effective-way-reverse-diabetes-NHS-doctor-chef-reveal-low-carb-diet-plan.html

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Insulin resistance arises due to excessive sugar/carbohydrate intake over a period of time and can be tackled by reducing the intake of sugar/carbohydrates. If you eat a plant based diet high in fruit, root vegetables and other food with a high glycemic index; then you can end up with insulin resistance. If you eat any food (plant based or otherwise) which is low in carbohydrates/sugars and has a low glycemic index, you can manage insulin resistance. 
I was vegetarian for years and my diet unfortunately included a daily large fruit shake with bananas and other fruits. I also enjoyed ice cream, cakes and desserts. I ended up pre-diabetic and with heart disease.
I see daily reports of those who have put their diabetes into remission and no longer need medication using a low carb diet.
I have never seen a study showing all cause mortality going up with a low carb diet, please share.

 

Britain's worst rag, The Daily Mail, which usually publishes nonsense nutrition advice, has an article on how people are tackling diabetes with a low carb approach.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6916909/Delicious-effective-way-reverse-diabetes-NHS-doctor-chef-reveal-low-carb-diet-plan.html

I also know that insulin and carbs are related just as you state. Fruit (healthy) is carbs and normally if you consume whole fruits it not much of a problem. However if you make shakes then things change as you consume more as you normally could.

 

Also muscle mass protects you from insulin as people who have more muscles can handle carbs better. Provided they exercise too, they drain their reserves and once carbs are added they get quickly entered back into the reserves without the long spike of insulin. The more muscle you have the larger the reserve is that you can use to store carbs. 

 

So many variables but its just best not to eat processed carbs or overdo it on carbs if you are not actively burning them. 

 

I was quite happy that i saw my weight going down recently even though I did not get slimmer. What happened was i did not eat enough carbs to replenish the glycogen i lost during my workout and for each gram of glycogen you lose 3 grams of water. So when I had a non training day and consumed carbs up with the weight ????

 

I did not realise i was that low in carbs. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, FracturedRabbit said:

It rather depends what you eat when you are not fasting! I fast for 18 hours a day, but when I eat I consume as much as I would if I were not fasting. Sure, if you fast for days on end your weight will drop; but if you practice therapeutic intermittent fasting then don't expect to lose weight (but do expect to feel good!).

Everyone fasts every day, without exception. I've never heard of anyone who eats continuously for 24 hours each day. ????

 

Try fasting for 23 hours a day. In other words, have just one meal per day. Initially, you might eat as much during that one meal as your previous breakfast, lunch and dinner combined, but gradually your stomach will shrink, and you will probably, eventually, be eating no more during that single meal per day than the largest of your previous three meals, and will lose weight as a consequence.

[FracturedRabbit]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Everyone fasts every day, without exception. I've never heard of anyone who eats continuously for 24 hours each day. ????

 

Try fasting for 23 hours a day. In other words, have just one meal per day. Initially, you might eat as much during that one meal as your previous breakfast, lunch and dinner combined, but gradually your stomach will shrink, and you will probably, eventually, be eating no more during that single meal per day than the largest of your previous three meals, and will lose weight as a consequence.

Probably; but I don't want to lose weight!  I do occasional 24 hour fasts; but find 18/6 is the most convenient.

[VincentRJ]

33 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Probably; but I don't want to lose weight!  I do occasional 24 hour fasts; but find 18/6 is the most convenient.

You don't want to lose weight because you are not overweight, or because you prefer to be overweight? Which? ????

[FracturedRabbit]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

You don't want to lose weight because you are not overweight, or because you prefer to be overweight? Which? ????

I used to be 84kg, now I am 69kg with a 31" waist. I class this as not overweight.

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This is a rather puzzling statement. Are you suggesting there are more effective ways of losing weight than fasting? As I understand, it's not possible not to lose weight if you fast. The longer you fast, the more weight you lose. To not lose weight during fasting would be against the fundamental laws of physics.

 

I think the story of Angus Barbieri has been mentioned before in this thread. This is an amazing example of a fast which lasted 382 day and resulted in a weight loss of 125 kg. I'm not aware of any type of diet which would allow a person to lose 125 kg of body weight in a little over a year. However, this fast was supervised by doctors administering vitamins and minerals as required, and Angus did occasionally have cups of coffee, tea, and sparkling water, so one could argue it was not a 'completely' true, water-only, fast.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-true-story-of-a-man-who-survived-without-any-food-for-382-days
 

I think you are missing my point.  Of course fasting will result in the most body fat loss possible in theory.  However, In practice a water fast is no walk in the park!  I regularly do 72 hour fasts (monthly for autophagy) and they are not fun.  I have done a 14 day fast (as an experiment out of curiosity) and all I can say is it was "hell on earth"

 

I'm the one who wrote about Angus Barbieri and it's a very true story.  Fasting is an excellent fat loss strategy only under certain circumstances where obesity has become life-threatening.  For the casual dieter or even the obese individual not facing a life threatening situation, a ketogenic diet is far more suitable simply because it is sustainable; for most people, a water fast is not.

 

Most people will find it VERY difficult to maintain a fast much longer that 3-5 days even if their body is acclimated to producing ketone bodies.  Note that you can;t just jump into water fasting; you need to build up to doing multi-day fasts.  On the average, a person will lose about 1/2 pound of actual fat per day while on a water fast.  Do the math; if you want to lose 20 pound of fat, do you really think you will want to be water-fasting for 40 days??  I think not.  That's why water fasting is not suitable for an obese person trying to loose body fat. 

 

That's not to say water fasting is without merits for someone wanting to reduce body fat.  Water fasting can be an excellent way to jump-start a ketogenic diet.  It will prime your body to efficiently run on ketones, release increased amount of growth hormone (so your metabolism won;t slow down as much as what happens in a calorie restricted diet), and most importantly it dramatically ramps  up autophagy (which is really the prime reason to do a fast IMHO).  Once these things have happened, the body is truly primed to make the most of a ketogenic diet that will quickly shed body fat in a much more sustainable way than if fasting were not done at the start.

 

I think the key thing to understand is that water-fasting can be a powerful tool for health IF it is done for the right reasons.  As contrary as it might seem, weight loss is not one of them.  All the major health benefits of water fasting really occur within 3-5 day window, and I just don't think it's wise or practical to go beyond that.  If you can reach your desired weight within 3-5 days of fasting, go for it, but anything beyond that, it's much wiser to shift over to a ketogenic diet if you really want a sustainable strategy.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

It rather depends what you eat when you are not fasting! I fast for 18 hours a day, but when I eat I consume as much as I would if I were not fasting. Sure, if you fast for days on end your weight will drop; but if you practice therapeutic intermittent fasting then don't expect to lose weight (but do expect to feel good!).

Totally agree.  I do intermittent fasting, not by design, but it's just how my appetite works now.  I actually only have a 2 hour eating window (late afternoon / early evening), and will consume some carbs pre/post workouts.  The whole idea is not really about how much you eat as it is with keeping insulin levels relatively low throughout the day and avoiding spikes as much as possible.  Most people these days consume carbs throughout the day from the moment they wake up to the moment they fall asleep.  Their insulin levels are right through the roof!  It's crazy!  No wonder there is a Diabetes-2 epidemic...even in little kids, which was unheard of only 20 years ago!

[robblok]

10 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

I used to be 84kg, now I am 69kg with a 31" waist. I class this as not overweight.

There are quite a lot of reasons to eat a certain diet and to eat healthy. It is not only about losing weight. Once I am at my target weight (target body fat percentage is more like it) I will be increasing what I am eating but still eat the same healthy foods. 

 

Staying on a weight is a lifetime commitment and so is eating healthy. You got it right with just doing what works for you.

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

I used to be 84kg, now I am 69kg with a 31" waist. I class this as not overweight.

However, it could be overweight if you are a dwarf. ????

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I think you are missing my point.  Of course fasting will result in the most body fat loss possible in theory.  However, In practice a water fast is no walk in the park!  I regularly do 72 hour fasts (monthly for autophagy) and they are not fun.  I have done a 14 day fast (as an experiment out of curiosity) and all I can say is it was "hell on earth"

 

We all have different experiences to some extent, and different reasons for fasting. My reasons are are purely for the health benefits since I don't consider myself to be overweight, although I used to be overweight a few years ago, by as much as 18-20 kg, but that used to vary. There was one occasion when I lost around 10 kg in 6 weeks as a result of prolonged trekking in the Himalayas, in Nepal. But I soon put the weight back on after I returned to Australia.

 

I don't obsess about counting calories, or measuring my blood pressure, or going for medical tests.. I just eat wholesome food, exercise fairly regularly, and fast fairly irregularly, that is, whenever it's convenient.

 

I have a belief, at least partially supported by the scientific evidence, that prolonged fasting for more than a day or two, or 3, can have additional benefits for those who are not overweight. These include the body's consumption of defunct, white blood cells, which are regenerated when one begins eating again, thus enhancing one's immune system, and the fixing any emerging problems such as the early stages of any cancerous tumours, or other problems which could become serious if not treated. In other words, I'm my own doctor.

 

Following are some links to the scientific evidence.
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/06/22/scientists-discover-that-fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-fights-cancer/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590914001519
 

"Prolonged fasting (PF) lasting 48–120 hr reduces progrowth signaling and activates pathways that enhance cellular resistance to toxins in mice and humans."

 

Most people will find it VERY difficult to maintain a fast much longer that 3-5 days even if their body is acclimated to producing ketone bodies.  Note that you can;t just jump into water fasting; you need to build up to doing multi-day fasts.  On the average, a person will lose about 1/2 pound of actual fat per day while on a water fast.  Do the math; if you want to lose 20 pound of fat, do you really think you will want to be water-fasting for 40 days??  I think not.  That's why water fasting is not suitable for an obese person trying to loose body fat.

 

Most people find it very difficult to fast at all, for any period in excess of the time they spend sleeping. My experience from discussions with overweight people, especially women, is that they are in a state of denial about the fundamental laws of Physics, that is, that one cannot become overweight without eating too much.
Some of them believe they are overweight simply because of their genes and that there is nothing they can do about it. Others claim that the pleasure of eating is one of the major pleasures in life and that they are not interested in giving that up, or reducing that pleasure.

 

You are quite right that periods of fasting should be increased gradually. The same applies to all activities. If you are not used to jogging now and again, and wish to start regular jogging for health reasons, it would not be advisable to begin your first jog with a marathon run.

 

You claim that fasting for 14 days was "hell on earth". I can only presume that you didn't follow your own advice. Did you jump from regular 3-day fasts to a 14 day fast without any intermediate stages, such as a few 4-day fasts, then a few 5-day fast, then a few 6-day fasts, and so on?

[TravelerEastWest]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This is a rather puzzling statement. Are you suggesting there are more effective ways of losing weight than fasting? As I understand, it's not possible not to lose weight if you fast. The longer you fast, the more weight you lose. To not lose weight during fasting would be against the fundamental laws of physics.

 

I think the story of Angus Barbieri has been mentioned before in this thread. This is an amazing example of a fast which lasted 382 day and resulted in a weight loss of 125 kg. I'm not aware of any type of diet which would allow a person to lose 125 kg of body weight in a little over a year. However, this fast was supervised by doctors administering vitamins and minerals as required, and Angus did occasionally have cups of coffee, tea, and sparkling water, so one could argue it was not a 'completely' true, water-only, fast.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-true-story-of-a-man-who-survived-without-any-food-for-382-days
 

I understand your frustration with your doctor's lack of nutritional and exercise counseling. I have had the same experience... In their defense they are typically overworked in an insurance-based medical system and do not have the time to really help - and yes they normally are not trained in nutrition.

 

I have spent many hours doing surface research (as stated before I am not qualified to review the research and I don't think many people are...) and based on keto type diets having increases all causes of long term mortality (my sources are primarily experienced cardiologists - again I do surface research and then end up following with an open mind)

 

As for internet gurus - I tend to discount those without training and then I look to see the general trend and balance with my own experience. 

 

I think that banishing processed carbs from our diet is a good thing but not whole food based carbs. I am familiar with Fung's thoughts and he is very arrogant and I think he is correct on the basic short term results of low carb diets and fasts. But he and others ignore the fat issues which from what I read are big issues.

 

So I see processed carbs as bad and leading to diabetes as well as a high fat diet. With fat being the primary cause.