I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

@wavehunter

 

Your talking to someone who swallows books a day when I have a holiday and loves his E reader. I read real fast and all the books I read are in English even though I am Dutch..

 

Your about diabetic is exactly my view, but your more extreme in your views. I say leave the processed carbs and you will be fine you take it a step further. (but fail at times just like all of us in your own diet, I did it you did it)

 

We already discussed athletes and you made the distinction that i can live with. No need to argue about that I might not 100% agree but close enough.

 

I come from a family that prepared their own meals so all that processed crap almost never hits me. I cook my own meals so I don't have much opinion on it besides to say that people are better off without it just like you said.

 

So there you have it i was in agreement just did not see why I had to tell you i was in agreement as we covered much of those points before and we were in agreement then. 

 

Before I was just not in agreement with your statement about not being able to lose fat on high carb diets, we are on agreement there too that its possible unless you have insulin issues.

 

Your probably from the US and I am from the Netherlands so i see things different as we had less processed foods and so on. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so snippy or preacher-like.  I just get really frustrated when I think people do not recognize how serious the situation is today with the ramifications of poor nutrition.  Diabetes is truly at epidemic proportions in the world and anyone who has done some unbiased research on this knows that excessive carbs are the root cause.  Yet there is still an active camp (i.e.: Joel Fuhrman MD) who will claim that fat, not carbs is the culprit).  I've explored both points of view in depth, and for the life of me, I just can't fathom how any rational person could not see the truth about carbs in connection with diabetes, yet th opposition is quite vocal and strong.

 

I may talk a lot about science based information but really I think my remarks are quite pragmatic.  Like I said, it was a real shock to me when I found out I was pre-diabetic; I didn't have a clue.  There were no symptoms; I felt fine, and yet I was sick!  Even worse, my doctor was absolutely no help at all.  I had to do all the heavy lifting to figure out that there really was an alternative to taking prescription drugs (which usually do not have a happy ending at all when it comes to diabetes T2 BTW), and nutrition turned out to be the key.  Why doctors are not required to study nutrition while in medical school is beyond me, but very few of them have a clue when it comes to that which is sad and alarming.

 

And like I said, I ride a lot with younger kids in their teens ands 20's.  You know how it is when you're that age; you think you're immortal.  Sadly though, these days, they are the one's most susceptible to developing metabolic problems because, unlike us in our 40's and 50's, they have gown up in the era of fast-food restaurants, and heavily processed foods. 

 

According to a well regarding source, ti is estimated that the prevalence of diabetes (type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes) will increase by 54% to more than 54.9 million Americans between 2015 and 2030; annual deaths attributed to diabetes will climb by 38% to 385,800; and total annual medical and societal costs related to diabetes will increase 53% to more than $622 billion by 2030  (see attached).  That is the definition of EPIDEMIC, and it is alarming and shocking to me that there is not more public awareness of the problem!  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5278808/

 

 

Just because you don't have a problem with insulin today is no guarantee you wont have one tomorrow, and if it does happen, there are usually no symptoms to warn you until it is too late to change its' course.  You just wake up one day and find out you have a problem!  However, Diabetes is a reversible condition despite what many doctors will tell you or even what the American Diabetes Association claims if you take action early enough.  I know by my own experience it is reversible through nutrition...but I think that's only true if you do something about it before things get too advanced.

 

That is whyI take the stance I do; it's not being carbo-phobic; it's being carb aware.   

[robblok]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so snippy or preacher-like.  I just get really frustrated when I think people do not recognize how serious the situation is today with the ramifications of poor nutrition.  Diabetes is truly at epidemic proportions in the world and anyone who has done some unbiased research on this knows that excessive carbs are the root cause.  Yet there is still an active camp (i.e.: Joel Fuhrman MD) who will claim that fat, not carbs is the culprit).  I've explored both points of view in depth, and for the life of me, I just can't fathom how any rational person could not see the truth about carbs in connection with diabetes, yet th opposition is quite vocal and strong.

 

I may talk a lot about science based information but really I think my remarks are quite pragmatic.  Like I said, it was a real shock to me when I found out I was pre-diabetic; I didn't have a clue.  There were no symptoms; I felt fine, and yet I was sick!  Even worse, my doctor was absolutely no help at all.  I had to do all the heavy lifting to figure out that there really was an alternative to taking prescription drugs, and nutrition turned out to be the key.  Why doctors are not required to study nutrition while in medical school is beyond me, but very few of them have a clue when it comes to that which is sad and alarming.

 

And like I said, I ride a lot with younger kids in their teens ands 20's.  You know how it is when you're that age; you think you're immortal.  Sadly though, these days, they are the one's most susceptible to developing metabolic problems because, unlike us in our 40's and 50's, they have gown up in the era of fast-food restaurants, and heavily processed foods. 

 

According to a well regarding source, ti is estimated that the prevalence of diabetes (type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes) will increase by 54% to more than 54.9 million Americans between 2015 and 2030; annual deaths attributed to diabetes will climb by 38% to 385,800; and total annual medical and societal costs related to diabetes will increase 53% to more than $622 billion by 2030  (see attached).  THAT is alarming and shocking!  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5278808/

 

 

Just because you don't have a problem with insulin today is no guarantee you wont have one tomorrow, and if it does happen, there are usually no symptoms to warn you until it is too late to change its' course unless diagnose it early enough.  You just wake up one day and find out you have a problem!  Diabetes is a reversible condition despite what many doctors will tell you or even what the American Diabetes Association claims.  I know by my own experience it is reversible through nutrition...but I think that's only true if you do something about it before things get too advanced.

 

That is whyI take the stance I do; it's not being carbo-phobic; it's being carb aware.   

Look I am not from the US but even where I am from its increasing. But its still different where I am from

 

I told you before my brother is now a diabetic who could eat all he wanted and now got it. So i know the risks. But there are signs, i take blood tests HbA1c and they give you a pretty good idea what is going on.

 

I just don't fear unprocessed carbs in normal quantities. I don't see a problem with them at all. There is no problem with them at all we always ate normal carbs in the Netherlands and did not have a problem at all until arrival of the processed carbs from fast foods and ready made meals.

 

So I don't worry about carbs that are unprocessed and in normal quantities. I have done many blood tests to see my blood sugar and have done HbA1c test even when I was high in carbs not a problem at all as they were unprocessed and not in the amounts that are in processed foods. 

 

That is perhaps where we differ (or not)

[WaveHunter]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

Look I am not from the US but even where I am from its increasing. But its still different where I am from

 

I told you before my brother is now a diabetic who could eat all he wanted and now got it. So i know the risks. But there are signs, i take blood tests HbA1c and they give you a pretty good idea what is going on.

 

I just don't fear unprocessed carbs in normal quantities. I don't see a problem with them at all. There is no problem with them at all we always ate normal carbs in the Netherlands and did not have a problem at all until arrival of the processed carbs from fast foods and ready made meals.

 

So I don't worry about carbs that are unprocessed and in normal quantities. I have done many blood tests to see my blood sugar and have done HbA1c test even when I was high in carbs not a problem at all as they were unprocessed and not in the amounts that are in processed foods. 

 

That is perhaps where we differ (or not)

As long as you test blood on a regular basis you can catch it in time to make changes, but you and I are much different than the general population who won't have a clue that they have a  problem until it is too late to affect the outcome because the symptoms (at least for me) were silent; only my blood test alerted it to me.  Most people do not even have blood tests on a regular basis much less anything other than a annual cursory medical physical for their insurance.

 

I guess we do disagree in regard to good carbs vs bad carbs.  I recognize there are low glycemic carbs and high glycemic ones; there is the natural sugars of fruit and processed one in the form of high fructose corn syrup, but in the end any carb is sugar and insulin responds to sugar no matter if it is processed or natural.

 

So, maybe I go overboard.  I guess I'm like the way ex-smokers act when they see someone smoking a cigarette.  Like you said, there's nothing unhealthy about carbs if your insulin response stays normal.  Everybody reacts to carbs differently; with regard to insulin response, some tolerate them well, some don't, and for some, it will change as they age.  I'm just saying that when/if that changes, things can become VERY problematic for your health.

 

And just to be clear, I do consume a fair amount of carbs in my diet.  I'll be the first to admit that I love how good some carbs taste even though I try to think of them only as fuel, but I always play close attention to my blood tests, and even then, I still know I feel much better when I keep them as low as possible. 

 

I also only eat one meal a day (2 hour eating window) so essentially I am fasting 22 hours per day which keeps insulin naturally low.  I know a lot of people will think that is stupid but the fact is that it works well for me.  It works for me because my body is now pretty well adapted to burning fat as fuel.  It took time to make that happen, and in the beginning it really sucked because I got very tired very easily, but the body is a remarkable machine, and it didn't really take that long for it to adapt to eating only once a day.  Thus, if I indulge in carbs it is one spike in insulin during the day.  I think the body can handle that fine.  I just think what it can not handle well (in anyone) is a high steady level throughout the day from constant between-meal snacks and then 3 spikes even higher from meals.  That's just me though; everybody is different.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

I'd love to be able to get off my blood pressure meds, only 5mg amlopine a day, but have sort of resigned myself that it is not going to happen. Would also like to reduce my fasting blood sugar levels but it has been the same 100 mg/dl for many years. I have reduced my carb intake considerably over the past 3 years but my blood sugar levels remain unchanged. 

 

I also exercise 5 days a week, mainly, rowing and am averaging more than 4 kms a day over the past year.  So increased exercise does not seem to have improved blood sugar levels either. 

What about your salt intake?  When I was diagnosed with HBP and being pre-diabetic, meds were prescribed by my MD.  When I explored nutritional alternatives I found both issues could be controlled without meds.  Basically I cut sugars and salt to a bare minimum.  I'm not exactly sure which was responsible for what or whether they both played a role but I am med-free as a result.  Discuss with your  MD and see what he/she thinks; maybe worth a shot??

[TravelerEastWest]

"Yet there is still an active camp (i.e.: Joel Fuhrman MD) who will claim that fat, not carbs is the culprit).  I've explored both points of view in depth, and for the life of me, I just can't fathom how any rational person could not see the truth about carbs in connection with diabetes, yet th opposition is quite vocal and strong."

 

It is not just an active camp suggesting a departure from SAD and moving towards a whole food plant-based diet. More and more doctors are moving that way and science backs up this way of life.

 

Programs are starting to train doctors in nutrition and the benefits of whole plant-based diets.

 

Dr Dean Ornish now has his low fat program paid for by Medicare (I think or is it Medicaid ?) 

 

More and more a low-fat whole food diet is supported by research and of course many personal stories...

 

Processed carbs are bad, whole plant carbs are fine. Now if you ate whole plant heavy carb carbs 18 hours a day is it bad for you? Probably way too much for diabetics and maybe others but this doesn't happen as whole plant-based foods fill you up.

 

 

[GarryP]

15 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

What about your salt intake?  When I was diagnosed with HBP and being pre-diabetic, meds were prescribed by my MD.  When I explored nutritional alternatives I found both issues could be controlled without meds.  Basically I cut sugars and salt to a bare minimum.  I'm not exactly sure which was responsible for what or whether they both played a role but I am med-free as a result.  Discuss with your  MD and see what he/she thinks; maybe worth a shot??

Sorry, I forgot to mention I also greatly reduced my salt and refined sugar intake too but I think in the case of salt it is the cumulative effects over years.  

[robblok]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

As long as you test blood on a regular basis you can catch it in time to make changes, but you and I are much different than the general population who won't have a clue that they have a  problem until it is too late to affect the outcome because the symptoms (at least for me) were silent; only my blood test alerted it to me.  Most people do not even have blood tests on a regular basis much less anything other than a annual cursory medical physical for their insurance.

 

I guess we do disagree in regard to good carbs vs bad carbs.  I recognize there are low glycemic carbs and high glycemic ones; there is the natural sugars of fruit and processed one in the form of high fructose corn syrup, but in the end any carb is sugar and insulin responds to sugar no matter if it is processed or natural.

 

So, maybe I go overboard.  I guess I'm like the way ex-smokers act when they see someone smoking a cigarette.  Like you said, there's nothing unhealthy about carbs if your insulin response stays normal.  Everybody reacts to carbs differently; with regard to insulin response, some tolerate them well, some don't, and for some, it will change as they age.  I'm just saying that when/if that changes, things can become VERY problematic for your health.

 

And just to be clear, I do consume a fair amount of carbs in my diet.  I'll be the first to admit that I love how good some carbs taste even though I try to think of them only as fuel, but I always play close attention to my blood tests, and even then, I still know I feel much better when I keep them as low as possible. 

 

I also only eat one meal a day (2 hour eating window) so essentially I am fasting 22 hours per day which keeps insulin naturally low.  I know a lot of people will think that is stupid but the fact is that it works well for me.  It works for me because my body is now pretty well adapted to burning fat as fuel.  It took time to make that happen, and in the beginning it really sucked because I got very tired very easily, but the body is a remarkable machine, and it didn't really take that long for it to adapt to eating only once a day.  Thus, if I indulge in carbs it is one spike in insulin during the day.  I think the body can handle that fine.  I just think what it can not handle well (in anyone) is a high steady level throughout the day from constant between-meal snacks and then 3 spikes even higher from meals.  That's just me though; everybody is different.

I never judge what other people do (unless its failing them). Its working for you so that is great. What I am doing is working for me.

 

Again I agree cut out as much processed carbs as possible that is just common sense. 

 

Right now I almost have no carbs in my diet only on workout days I add 100 grams of uncooked macaroni (i weight it uncooked) and then some sauce with pork. That is my pre workout meal. After that its pretty carb less again. On my non training days almost no carbs. I still do my loaded carries. I am trying this low carb a bit and as i said i think i feel less hungry then when i felt on high carb when i lost all the weight. But its hard to be 100% sure.

 

 

[villagefarang]

I guess I am in the camp which believes it is up to me to take responsibility for my own health and the same holds for everyone else.  I don't get the whole evangelical thing.????

[robblok]

41 minutes ago, villagefarang said:

I guess I am in the camp which believes it is up to me to take responsibility for my own health and the same holds for everyone else.  I don't get the whole evangelical thing.????

I feel everyone has to check for themselves what works for them. If a diet is too restrictive you wont stick to it. Not everyone can do low carb. Same goes for exercise do something you like even if it is not the best.

 

I might not have the best training program there is but I like it and I can keep doing it. Consistency winst out always same goes for diets so pick something that is not too bad (just cut out most processed carbs). 

[robblok]

Real interesting read also for non muscle heads

 

https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/a-calorie-is-sometimes-not-a-calorie

[JWRC]

Meechai said he once went 16 days without food. I can better that, I went 22 days and the only thing I could have was Ice blocks to suck on. I was not overweight, however I still lost 9.7kg, no excercise of course as I was confined to a hospital bed after a bowel re-section, but its amazing just how the body copes when denied it's usual sustenance.

[WaveHunter]

21 hours ago, robblok said:

I never judge what other people do (unless its failing them). Its working for you so that is great. What I am doing is working for me.

 

Again I agree cut out as much processed carbs as possible that is just common sense. 

 

Right now I almost have no carbs in my diet only on workout days I add 100 grams of uncooked macaroni (i weight it uncooked) and then some sauce with pork. That is my pre workout meal. After that its pretty carb less again. On my non training days almost no carbs. I still do my loaded carries. I am trying this low carb a bit and as i said i think i feel less hungry then when i felt on high carb when i lost all the weight. But its hard to be 100% sure.

 

 

I think we’re pretty much on the same page.  If you are smart about how you use carbs, and know how your body reacts to them then there’s no problem.  Everybody’s insulin response to carbs is different, and it can change radically for an individual over time, so you have to keep that in mind and blood test periodically.

 

Most people who are unfamiliar with Keto think that Keto means “no carbs” but that’s not true and not the point.  The point of Keto is to adapt that body to being more versatile in its ability to use fat as fuel.

 

From an evolutionary standpoint our bodies prefer glucose and will only use stored fat when glucose stores run low.  What Keto is all about is training the body to more easily use fats as a fuel.

 

There’s a big different between being in ketosis, and being Keto-adapted.   You can fast and after the liver’s glycogen stores are depleted, your body will start producing ketones but that doesn’t mean your body will know how to use them optimally.

 

Most people who “dabble” with a Keto diet don’t understand that it is NOT a diet.  They try it for a few days, feel horrible, and give up.  It’s not a weight loss diet, it is a strategy to train your body to rely less on carbs and use fats more efficiently as a primary fuel source when circumstances make that preferable.  The body will not do this unless it is trained to do it.  That is what Keto-adaptation is all about.

 

While anyone can get into ketosis within 72 hours coming from a rich carb diet, it can take weeks or even months before the body “learns” how to use ketones optimally.  That is “keto adaptation”.

 

So why  would anybody want to do that?  The reason is because it makes no sense to rely on only carbs as a primary fuel when the average person is carrying around a huge percentage of their body mass in the form if stored fat.  

 

Being Keto-adapted allows your body to shift over to burning fat more quickly and efficiently than if you are not Keto-adapted.

 

It’s analogous to the way a hybrid car can more efficiently run on BOTH gasoline and electricity, than it can on either one alone.

 

So, in the long run, going Keto is not about giving up carbs; it’s about using fats more efficiently.  Our reliance, almost exclusively on carbs for fuel is not a good thing for your health in general, nor is it the most efficient way to run our “engine”.

 

When your body is Keto-adapted, you will naturally rely less on carbs.

 

 Contrary  to what many believe, the body can be trained to use fat as fuel in a highly efficient way, even when it comes to situations requiring explosive strength.  It can also solve the problem of “bonking” for endurance athletes, as many athletes are starting to realize. 

 

I urge you to look into the work of a couple of leading researchers that are working almost exclusively with athletes in connection to Keto-adaptation; Dr. Jeff Volek, and Dr. Stephen Phinney.  

 

Here’s a Google search link

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enTH814TH814&hl=en-US&biw=1024&bih=659&ei=PQG4XI6lKcvWvAS_1p3wAw&q=jeff+volek+and+stephen+phinney&oq=jeff+volek+stephen+phinney&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.0.0i7i30.15117.17296..20813...0.0..0.136.569.0j5......0....1.XhGYO6fOvAY

 

Whether or not you agree with the concept of Keto-adaptation, their studies are scientifically conducted with athletes in a very rigorous way, and much of what they’ve learned from these studies is fascinating, and is definitely “food for thought” to anyone with an open, enquiring mind.

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I think we’re pretty much on the same page.  If you are smart about how you use carbs, and know how your body reacts to them then there’s no problem.  Everybody’s insulin response to carbs is different, and it can change radically for an individual over time, so you have to keep that in mind and blood test periodically.

 

most people who are unfamiliar with Keto think that Keto means “no carbs” but that’s not true and not the point.  The point of Keto is to adapt that body to being more versatile in its ability to use fat as fuel.

 

From an evolutionary standpoint our bodies prefer glucose and will only use stored fat when glucose stores run low.  What Keto is all about is training the body to more easily use fats as a fuel.

 

There’s a big different between being in ketosis, and being Keto-adapted.   You can fast and after the liver’s glycogen stores are depleted, your body will start producing ketones but that doesn’t mean your body will know how to use them optimally.

 

While anyone can get into ketosis within 72 hours coming from a rich carb diet, it can take weeks or even months before the body “learns” how to use ketones optimally.  That is “keto adaptation”.

 

So why  would anybody want to do that?  The reason is because it makes no sense to rely on only carbs as a primary fuel when the average person is carrying around a huge percentage of their body mass in the form if stored fat.  Being Keto-adapted allows your body to shift over to burning fat more quickly and efficiently to stored fat than if you are not Keto-adapted.

 

its analogous to a hybrid car that effluent,y runs in BOTH gasoline and electricity.

 

So, in the long run, going Keto is not about giving up carbs; it’s about using fats more efficiently.  Our reliance, almost exclusively on carbs for fuel is not a good thing for your health in general.  

 

When your body is Keto-adapted, you will naturally rely less on carbs, and contrary to what many believe, the body can be trained to use fat as fuel in a highly effluent way, even when it comes to situations requiring explosive strength, as many athletes are starting to realize. I urge you to look into the work of a couple of leading researchers that are working almost exclusively with athletes in connection to Keto-adaptation; Dr. Jeff Volek, and Dr. Stephen Phinney.  Here’s a Google search link

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enTH814TH814&hl=en-US&biw=1024&bih=659&ei=PQG4XI6lKcvWvAS_1p3wAw&q=jeff+volek+and+stephen+phinney&oq=jeff+volek+stephen+phinney&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.0.0i7i30.15117.17296..20813...0.0..0.136.569.0j5......0....1.XhGYO6fOvAY

Yes we are pretty close in what we believe in, there is a reason why i take MCT 8 oil. I want my body to have fats available to burn so it can do both. You have to understand glucose or glycogen is not always the prefered fuel it also depends on the intensity of what we are doing. That is why there was the fat burning zone (later discredited as high intensity would burn more overal) But that fat burning zone showed that for instance if you do a jog the body will prefer fat as a fuel over glycogen. 

 

I wrote it before most strength coaches are going away from ZERO carbs to taking carbs around workouts using them strategically. Manipulating the insulin response when needed. Insulin does not only stop fat from burning but also puts the nutrients in muscles. So it makes sense to eat carbs around the time the muscles need nutrients (proteins and such) to get them there exta fast. They still stay relatively low in carbs. 

 

I try to prevent my glycogen reserves from being drained totally as for me that is a bad thing. 

 

I also take berberine to keep insulin response low, also muscles and strength training make your body use insulin better. 

 

Advise for a strength athlete is not the same as for a an obese person that does nothing. Did you take a look at that shocking picture i send of fat Rob ?  I don't think I was obese. But can you believe I was exercising 4 times a week then.  This was just after the 2011 floods, i had been locked up in my home (village was flooded) bored out of my mind eating bad stuff and drinking too much.

 

I must say the weight loss that I have now is NOT going faster then when I was high carb it is going around the same speed. I just hope it is not going to stall. That is always the problem. 

 

I would always advise people who are a lot overweight to cut processed carbs first, later they can cut more carbs if need be. 

 

One thing I have found from losing weight is that one should not go full out right away. There should always be room for improvement so one can still change a bit when you hit a plateau. That was one of my mistakes before. Making sure you can still clean diet up more or can still ad more exercise. 

 

 

[WaveHunter]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes we are pretty close in what we believe in, there is a reason why i take MCT 8 oil. I want my body to have fats available to burn so it can do both. You have to understand glucose or glycogen is not always the prefered fuel it also depends on the intensity of what we are doing. That is why there was the fat burning zone (later discredited as high intensity would burn more overal) But that fat burning zone showed that for instance if you do a jog the body will prefer fat as a fuel over glycogen. 

 

I wrote it before most strength coaches are going away from ZERO carbs to taking carbs around workouts using them strategically. Manipulating the insulin response when needed. Insulin does not only stop fat from burning but also puts the nutrients in muscles. So it makes sense to eat carbs around the time the muscles need nutrients (proteins and such) to get them there exta fast. They still stay relatively low in carbs. 

 

I try to prevent my glycogen reserves from being drained totally as for me that is a bad thing. 

 

I also take berberine to keep insulin response low, also muscles and strength training make your body use insulin better. 

 

Advise for a strength athlete is not the same as for a an obese person that does nothing. Did you take a look at that shocking picture i send of fat Rob ?  I don't think I was obese. But can you believe I was exercising 4 times a week then.  This was just after the 2011 floods, i had been locked up in my home (village was flooded) bored out of my mind eating bad stuff and drinking too much.

 

I must say the weight loss that I have now is NOT going faster then when I was high carb it is going around the same speed. I just hope it is not going to stall. That is always the problem. 

 

I would always advise people who are a lot overweight to cut processed carbs first, later they can cut more carbs if need be. 

 

One thing I have found from losing weight is that one should not go full out right away. There should always be room for improvement so one can still change a bit when you hit a plateau. That was one of my mistakes before. Making sure you can still clean diet up more or can still ad more exercise. 

 

 

The idea that new research is always challenging old ideas (as you pointed out about coaches shying away from zero carbs) is what makes the study of nutrition and athletic performance so interesting imo.  You constantly have to be open to new ways of looking at things.  That’s why I’m so fascinating with Keto.

 

i know it sounds like I’m on the anti-carb bandwagon and tend to get carried away with it, especially when it comes to people that are obese or insulin-challenged.  

 

For the obese or insulin-challenged, I really do believe that carbs are the culprit.  

 

However, for the average person who is healthy and wants their body to perform in an optimal way, I believe that “targeted keto” is the way to go.  (Click link to see a google search for this term)

 

Targeted-Keto acknowledges the importance of carbs and is a more proper nutritional strategy than simply eliminating carbs altogether or keeping them at extremely low levels (I.e.: under 50 grams per day).  Rather, it’s a way to promote ketosis for the purpose of Keto-adaptation and the more efficient use of stored fat.

 

Again, the analogy to Targeted-Keto is the hybrid car that makes the most efficient use of BOTH gasoline and electricity.  

 

That’s what Targeted Keto does; it is a way to use BOTH fats and carbs in the most efficient way possible to fuel the body, and at the same time promote greater health and less chance of metabolic syndromes from occurring.

 

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

The idea that new research is always challenging old ideas (as you pointed out about coaches shying away from zero carbs) is what makes the study of nutrition and athletic performance so interesting imo.  You constantly have to be open to new ways of looking at things.  That’s why I’m so fascinating with Keto.

 

i know it sounds like I’m on the anti-carb bandwagon and tend to get carried away with it, especially when it comes to people that are obese or insulin-challenged.  

 

For the obese or insulin-challenged, I really do believe that carbs are the culprit.  

 

However, for the average person who is healthy and wants their body to perform in an optimal way, I believe that “targeted keto” is the way to go.  (Click link to see a google search for this term)

 

Targeted-Keto acknowledges the importance of carbs and is a more proper nutritional strategy.  

 

Again, the analogy to Targeted-Keto is the hybrid car that makes the most efficient use of BOTH gasoline and electricity.  

 

That’s what Targeted Keto does; it is a way to use BOTH fats and carbs in the most efficient way possible to fuel the body, and at the same time promote greater health and less chance of metabolic syndromes from occurring.

 

What your describing is what the coaches now call a flexible metabolism. That is what they are aiming for. We are talking about strength coaches endurance could be full keto like you said.

 

Of course there are other coaches who don't believe this and there are arguments for both sides. That makes it so hard.

 

Yes your right for obese people best thing is to remove carbs until they react normally to insulin.

[WaveHunter]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

What your describing is what the coaches now call a flexible metabolism. That is what they are aiming for. We are talking about strength coaches endurance could be full keto like you said.

 

Of course there are other coaches who don't believe this and there are arguments for both sides. That makes it so hard.

 

Yes your right for obese people best thing is to remove carbs until they react normally to insulin.

There are always going to be opposing views to everything when it comes to nutrition and sports performance.  The best you can do is study all viewpoints and then decide for yourself.

 

Often, in the end, the actual “truth” usually turns out to be a little bit of truth from both contrasting points of view.  Kind of funny how that usually happens ????

 

In this modern world of ours with all of our technological achievements, it’s amazing how little we still really understand about how our own bodies work!  It’s pretty humbling when you stop and think about it!

[WaveHunter]

20 hours ago, villagefarang said:

I guess I am in the camp which believes it is up to me to take responsibility for my own health and the same holds for everyone else.  I don't get the whole evangelical thing.????

Yes, of course it is up to the individual to decide what is best for them.  However, taking responsibility for your own health relies on basing your course of action on science-based facts, not just relying on herd-mentality of jumping on one bandwagon or another just because it "feels" right.

 

When it comes to nutrition and health, in spite of all of our modern day technological achievements, we actually know very little about how our own bodies actually work.   So, it's very rare for a single school of thought to be either 100% correct or incorrect. 

 

Therefore, varying and often opposing points of view must be explored to derive a solution that is correct for a particular individual.  

 

You may call it "evangelical" when someone expresses a viewpoint, especially if they feel very strongly about it, but if somebody advocates a point of view strongly, and backs it up with strong science, then there are probably important elements of truth to consider. 

 

You don't have to jump on their bandwagon, but if you ignore what they have to say, it's no different than sticking your head in the sand.

 

Coming up with a solution that's right for a particular individual when it comes to health and nutrition should be hard work.  You can't just choose one school of thought and think of it as the gospel-truth. 

 

Instead, It should be like putting together a complex puzzle comprised of pieces of truth from all different points of view, not just one.

 

[villagefarang]

Throwing in a one line qualifier to sound understanding and then turning around and telling people what they "must" do doesn't cut it with me.  You continue to insist that if people don't do it your way they are sticking their heads in the sand or worse.  You are free to choose what you consider the best path for you but can't you do that without all the insistence that you are right and following the only valid path?❓

[WaveHunter]

2 minutes ago, villagefarang said:

Throwing in a one line qualifier to sound understanding and then turning around and telling people what they "must" do doesn't cut it with me.  You continue to insist that if people don't do it your way they are sticking their heads in the sand or worse.  You are free to choose what you consider the best path for you but can't you do that without all the insistence that you are right and following the only valid path?❓

That's a complete nonsensical interpretation of what I said.  I'll just leave it at that.

[villagefarang]

Nice rewrite with a more nuanced presentation.????

[WaveHunter]

22 minutes ago, villagefarang said:

Nice rewrite with a more nuanced presentation.????

Not sure if you are replying to me or not but if you are, perhaps you read my post when I was just rough-drafting it.  It's a stupid habit I have but a lot of times I post a first draft, read it and then edit it. 

 

In this case, if you read the first draft, I can certainly see how you may have taken it as arrogant and confrontational.  That was certainly NOT my intent, so my apologies if that's the case. 

 

My only intention was to say that one has to look at different viewpoints with regard to nutrition since no single school of thought or individual's viewpoint (certainly not mine) can be 100% correct, nor should they be completely discounted as being 100% wrong either.

 

The very nature of nutrition with all of its' unknowns means there are going to be paradoxes with any single school of thought, and of course there also the fact that what is right for a particular individual will depend on their own circumstances and goals, so only their own interpretation of science based facts are important, not the viewpoints of those who stated them.

 

So, all I was really saying is that if you are going to be responsible for your health, you need to base your strategy only on science-based facts that come from varying, and even contrary sources since no single source has the "right" answer.

 

Sorry if I caused confusion on my intent.

[WaveHunter]

x

[WaveHunter]

So you think you can't build muscle on a ketogenic diet?  Read these research studies and you might change your mind.

 

• Effect of beta-hydroxybutyrate on whole-body leucine kinetics and fractional mixed skeletal muscle protein synthesis in humans.
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC303494/pdf/jcinvest00079-0206.pdf
    • This study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation found that beta-hydroxybutyrate (i.e.: ketone bodies) promote protein synthesis in humans.

 

• The effects of ketogenic dieting on skeletal muscle and fat mass

  • https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-S1-P40#Sec

    • From the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, compared the effects of a traditional high-carbohydrate diet to a ketogenic diet in resistance-trained athletes.   26 resistance-trained men participated in the study and were split into two groups: 5% CHO, 75% Fat, 20% Protein (Ketogenic Diet) 55% CHO, 25% Fat, 20% Protein (Traditional Western Diet).  After 11 weeks, the results were as follows: The ketogenic diet resulted in a 2.1 kg greater lean body mass increase. Fat mass decreased on the ketogenic diet by 2.2 kg (0.7 kg greater than the Western diet group).

 

Just food for thought ????

 

[robblok]

7 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

So you think you can't build muscle on a ketogenic diet?  Read these research studies and you might change your mind.

 

• Effect of beta-hydroxybutyrate on whole-body leucine kinetics and fractional mixed skeletal muscle protein synthesis in humans.
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC303494/pdf/jcinvest00079-0206.pdf
    • This study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation found that beta-hydroxybutyrate (i.e.: ketone bodies) promote protein synthesis in humans.

 

• The effects of ketogenic dieting on skeletal muscle and fat mass

  • https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-S1-P40#Sec

    • From the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, compared the effects of a traditional high-carbohydrate diet to a ketogenic diet in resistance-trained athletes.   26 resistance-trained men participated in the study and were split into two groups: 5% CHO, 75% Fat, 20% Protein (Ketogenic Diet) 55% CHO, 25% Fat, 20% Protein (Traditional Western Diet).  After 11 weeks, the results were as follows: The ketogenic diet resulted in a 2.1 kg greater lean body mass increase. Fat mass decreased on the ketogenic diet by 2.2 kg (0.7 kg greater than the Western diet group).

 

Just food for thought ????

 

If you don't mind ill stick to real life examples of the expert trainers instead of the study.  This study does not show much IMHO as they call these people resistance trained but they gained 2.1 kg muscle  in 11 weeks. Those are newby gains. 

 

You can believe what you want but i believe the trainers. It also does not stat how many calories both got and what kind of training was done. The true professionals are bodybuilders and they inject insulin to promote muscle growth and are bigger then ever. So i believe in real world evidence instead of a flawed (i find calling untrained people  resistance trained athletes a major flaw)

 

https://muscleevo.net/ketogenic-diet-muscle-growth/

 

Here are some other keto studies discredited, one measured the keto group muscles when on low carb.. but measured the extra muscle after they carbed up (more glycogen is more muscle). So sorry that I don't believe those keto studies as often they are false.

 

I prefer to believe the people who make money from winning contests in bodybuilding. You will see few bodybuilders that go keto. Guess why.. it just does not work as good as with carbs. 

 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

If you don't mind ill stick to real life examples of the expert trainers instead of the study.  This study does not show much IMHO as they call these people resistance trained but they gained 2.1 kg muscle  in 11 weeks. Those are newby gains. 

 

You can believe what you want but i believe the trainers. It also does not stat how many calories both got and what kind of training was done. The true professionals are bodybuilders and they inject insulin to promote muscle growth and are bigger then ever. So i believe in real world evidence instead of a flawed (i find calling untrained people  resistance trained athletes a major flaw)

 

https://muscleevo.net/ketogenic-diet-muscle-growth/

 

Here are some other keto studies discredited, one measured the keto group muscles when on low carb.. but measured the extra muscle after they carbed up (more glycogen is more muscle). So sorry that I don't believe those keto studies as often they are false.

 

I prefer to believe the people who make money from winning contests in bodybuilding. You will see few bodybuilders that go keto. Guess why.. it just does not work as good as with carbs. 

 

A "Resistance trained" athlete does not necessarily mean a body builder.  I would agree with you that keto is not going to be a good foundation for the kind of muscle gain required in competitive body-building, but most people are not looking for those kind of gains. 

 

Someone who is "on the fence" about Keto nutrition usually has one prime concern and that is loss of muscle and the inability to have "moderate" resistance gains in the gym.  Not everybody wants a bodybuilder's body; they just want to overcome natural age-related muscle loss.

 

I think these studies and other credible studies I've seen (i.e.: involving world-class cyclists, and competitive gymnasts, as well as examples of numerous ultra-marathoners, and other athletes from many different sports), offer definitive proof that a keto lifestyle is not only muscle-sparing, but that moderate muscle growth can easily occur.  That's all I'm saying. 

 

What's more the first study I listed, although very technical and not really intended to support ketogenic nutrition is still further proof that beta-hydroxybutyrate (i.e.: ketone bodies) promote protein synthesis in humans.

[WaveHunter]

 

4 hours ago, robblok said:

...Here are some other keto studies discredited,...

You comment infers that these studies I've cited have been discredited.  Care to elaborate on that?  I think that's an unfair inference unless you have proof.  To my mind, both of these studies as well as many others I've seen are properly conducted and unbiased studies.

 

Of course there are plenty of poorly conducted studies, and some that are purposely falsified to support a hidden agenda, but they are not confined to studies that support a Keto lifestyle.  You can't argue there have been PLENTY of poorly conducted studies that were clearly intended to support high-carb nutrition.  Many have been funded and still are being funded by the huge nutritional supplement industry who make millions (if not billions) of dollars by deceiving the public.

 

There are always going to be poorly conducted studies or even false studies to support a biased agenda; no argument there.  That fact does not undermine well conducted studies that support a Keto lifestyle as a healthy alternative to one based on high carbs for many different categories of people, from those afflicted with metabolic syndromes to elite world-class athletes seeking optimal performance for their given sport.

 

[robblok]

53 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

A "Resistance trained" athlete does not necessarily mean a body builder.  I would agree with you that keto is not going to be a good foundation for the kind of muscle gain required in competitive body-building, but most people are not looking for those kind of gains. 

 

Someone who is "on the fence" about Keto nutrition usually has one prime concern and that is loss of muscle and the inability to have "moderate" resistance gains in the gym.  Not everybody wants a bodybuilder's body; they just want to overcome natural age-related muscle loss.

 

I think these studies and other credible studies I've seen (i.e.: involving world-class cyclists, and competitive gymnasts, as well as examples of numerous ultra-marathoners, and other athletes from many different sports), offer definitive proof that a keto lifestyle is not only muscle-sparing, but that moderate muscle growth can easily occur.  That's all I'm saying. 

 

What's more the first study I listed, although very technical and not really intended to support ketogenic nutrition is still further proof that beta-hydroxybutyrate (i.e.: ketone bodies) promote protein synthesis in humans.

loss of muscle on Keto is a myth, never said you lose muscle on keto.

 

I am only saying its not optimal for muscle growth. 

[robblok]

35 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

 

You comment infers that these studies I've cited have been discredited.  Care to elaborate on that?  I think that's an unfair inference unless you have proof.  To my mind, both of these studies as well as many others I've seen are properly conducted and unbiased studies.

 

Of course there are plenty of poorly conducted studies, and some that are purposely falsified to support a hidden agenda, but they are not confined to studies that support a Keto lifestyle.  You can't argue there have been PLENTY of poorly conducted studies that were clearly intended to support high-carb nutrition.  Many have been funded and still are being funded by the huge nutritional supplement industry who make millions (if not billions) of dollars by deceiving the public.

 

There are always going to be poorly conducted studies or even false studies to support a biased agenda; no argument there.  That fact does not undermine well conducted studies that support a Keto lifestyle as a healthy alternative to one based on high carbs for many different categories of people, from those afflicted with metabolic syndromes to elite world-class athletes seeking optimal performance for their given sport.

 

I know but the studies i showed in the link show some falsehoods. Like measuring initial muscle mass when carb depleted and then before measuring carbing up (adding gycocen and muscle) and then claiming its muslce mass gained by keto. That is a false hood.

 

The study you cited about the resistance athlethes that gained 2 kg in 10 weeks, those are not athlethes but beginners because if you calculate it it would mean 10kg in a year.. only beginners have those options. So calling untrained people athletes is in my opinion misstatement of facts.

 

I had no problem with the other studies. 

 

And yes its not just keto that is using false studies or do cherry picking.

 

Again I believe you can gain muscle on keto, its just not optimal. The study that said it was better was the study with measuring first carb depleted (muscle mass is less then) and then just before measuring the end result carbing up (adding glycocen and thus muscle mass) and then measuring. That is a falsehood. You can't just do it like that.

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

 

YOUR REMARK:  ...The study you cited about the resistance athlethes that gained 2 kg in 10 weeks, those are not athlethes but beginners because if you calculate it it would mean 10kg in a year.. only beginners have those options. So calling untrained people athletes is in my opinion misstatement of facts...

 

MY RESPONSE:  Not all athletes who do resistance training seek body-builder physiques.  For many athletes the LAST thing they want to do is add body weight in the form of unnecessary muscle mass .  Road cyclists are perfect examples.  They are most certainly athletes in every sense of the word.  The do resistance training to train specific muscle groups that will help with performance but not ones that do not add to performance.

 

A few extra grams of weight can be the difference between winning a loosing a race.  Racers pay tens of thousands of dollars for bikes that can save a few grams of weight.  Their body weight is critical.  Most world class racers have a body fat percentage of 6-10%.  Yet they do a lot of resistance training, and in terms of lower body strength are probably some of the strongest athletes in the world, yet if you look at their upper body musculature they look skinny becuase upper body strength would add nothing to performance for cycling, only excess muscle mass that would be a penalty in terms of excess weight and thus slower speed.

 

YOUR REMARK:  ......The study that said it (keto) was better was the study with measuring first carb depleted (muscle mass is less then) and then just before measuring the end result carbing up (adding glycocen and thus muscle mass) and then measuring. That is a falsehood. You can't just do it like that. ....

 

......Again I believe you can gain muscle on keto, its just not optimal. ...

 

MY RESPONSE

So, yes I agree that the studies that you cited leave a lot of grey areas to them BUT the way the author of the MuscleEvo article summed his view up on those studies is, "...there’s currently no compelling evidence to show that ketogenic diets offer any muscle-building benefits that you don’t get with a higher-carb diet providing adequate amounts of protein and fat."  That statement infers that higher-carb diets AND keto diets can have the same muscle building benefits (provided protein and fats are the same in both groups.  In other words, it is the fat and protein that matters, not the carbs.

 

I believe this is true for many people (not everyone, but still many more than yo might imagine).  I think you are discounting something really important.  First of all, when you are truly keto-adapted (which takes months to accomplish and is quite different than simply being in ketosis) there are a lot of metabolic changes that have taken place that simply lower the body's need for exogenous carbohydrates. 

 

What's more, being keto-adapted changes the hormonal balance completely.  For example, higher levels of growth hormone are produced during extreme ketosis in keto-adapted state, which will result in more optimized use of carbohydrates when they are consumed (so that might actually explain what you consider to be a flaw you pointed out in that one study where carbs were introduced in the last weeks of the study might not really invalidate the study if you think about it).  I'm not saying that's so since it would take a whole focused study to determine that.  My point is simply that a lot of important hormonal changes occur in a keto-adapted state that need to be taken into account beforE you can really say keto can not be considered as good as carb-rich diets. 

 

One of the most important changes is the capability of producing glucose when it's needed without the need for exogenous (eating) carbs if keto-adaptation has taken place.  It's called Gluconeogenesis. 

 

Of course it's true that in the average person, Gluconeogenesis will result in catabolizing protein but that is not what happens in a keto-adapted individual!  What happens instead is that protein will be spared in favor of using dietary fats and stored fats, and the utilization of those fats for energy will occur far faster than in an unadapted person.  In the keto-adapted individual there is a far more efficient ability to switch from carbs to fats, and a much less reliance on only carbs.  That's why many ultra-marathoners are exploring Keto now; because it makes the possibility of "bonking" less of an issue during extreme training and competition.

 

Can gaining muscle on Keto be optimal?  It depends on  how you define the word "optimal"  For somebody who's into competitive body-building, carb-rich diets are probably superior, but for many people's needs, Keto can indeed be an optimal way to build muscle, and that not only includes people with metabolic syndromes but can include many categories of athletes as well.

 

I am not saying dietary carbs are not important; I'm just saying there are options for less reliance on them that many are not even willing to consider but perhaps should. 

 

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

loss of muscle on Keto is a myth, never said you lose muscle on keto.

 

I am only saying its not optimal for muscle growth. 

Glad we agree that muscle loss when keto-adapted is a myth.  Most people don't understand this and criticize keto on this basis. 

 

Just to be clear though, it's not entirely a myth.  You have to be in a ketogenic state long enough for hormonal changes to occur or else you can indeed loose muscle. You must be "keto-adapted", not merely in ketosis.

 

Merely getting into ketosis is not the same as becoming keto-adapted.  If you water fast to get into ketosis, and do it from a carb-fed state, it takes at least 3 days in order for glycogen stores in the liver to be depleted, and during that time proteins will be catabolized. If you don't fast but just do a ketogenic diet, it will take even longer.  The longer it takes to get fully into ketosis, the more protein will be catabolized.

 

During a water fast, It's not a big deal in terms of muscle loss because the autophagic response to fasting will mostly spare essential proteins (like muscle) and scavenge for less important (dysfunctional) intracellular proteins, but the longer it takes you to get into ketosis, the more essential proteins will start to become catabolized. 

 

It's not really a big issue though.  Even if it takes you a week to get into ketosis, the actual muscle you will loose can easily be restored by a week or two back in the gym.

 

The big issue for most people though is repeatedly go in and out of ketosis even in the most minor way (i.e.: cheat by eating a cookie)  If you do this on a regular basis, you risk burning unacceptable amounts of muscle.  To become truly keto-adapted, you have to commit to doing it right, or not doing it at all.

 

As for keto being "optimal" or not for muscle growth, I think that would really depend on an individual's circumstances and goals.