Any one doing the OMAD diet ( One Meal a Day )

[patman30]

23 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Newsflash, Potatoes  (carbohydrates) are good for you and helps you lose weight. I appreciate the carb phobic people won't like this news

 

 

https://www.gbnews.uk/health/eating-a-common-vegetable-is-the-key-to-losing-weight-research-study-claims/397453

Did you actually read the article and how they came to their conclusion LOL
basically the study discovered
an unhealthy reduced meat diet with potatoes, is just as healthy as an unhealthy reduced meat diet without potatoes
i will stick with my own observations thanks

[patman30]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:32 PM, WaveHunter said:

These all are FAD DIETS 

and then you go on to explain we should be eating Keto with IF/OMAD LOL
Keto is not a fad diet but exactly as you described
carnivore is a natural progression from Keto for many people, again not a fad, there is no set diet, it is just a label given to how you eat
basically stopped bothering with veg, when meat will suffice
but carnivore is not always keto, as Milk and Honey are carnivore but not keto
Paleo is whole foods only, so again not a fad, just a label, unless not eating processed junk is now considered a fad

when i say diet i mean diet, i do not mean weight loss
The label i give my diet is BasedAF
i am not strict but it is based on Animal Fat,
mostly eat carnivore/keto

For the most part i agree with everything else you wrote.????

Edited November 29, 2022 by patman30

[patman30]

On 11/18/2022 at 12:22 PM, Hummin said:

I can assure you every intermittent fasting plans shows up in the google research, and I'm quite positive if it is a serious trial omad would be one of the search words. 

There are no IF plans (except from sites wrongly using IF for clicks)
IF refers to the eating window, or non eating window
there is no diet as such, that is seperate
and could consist of any foods
you can do IF eating steak everyday
or you can do IF eating gummy bears
IF just like OMAD is NOT a diet but an eating pattern.

[WaveHunter]

15 hours ago, patman30 said:

and then you go on to explain we should be eating Keto with IF/OMAD LOL
Keto is not a fad diet but exactly as you described
carnivore is a natural progression from Keto for many people, again not a fad, there is no set diet, it is just a label given to how you eat
basically stopped bothering with veg, when meat will suffice
but carnivore is not always keto, as Milk and Honey are carnivore but not keto
Paleo is whole foods only, so again not a fad, just a label, unless not eating processed junk is now considered a fad

when i say diet i mean diet, i do not mean weight loss
The label i give my diet is BasedAF
i am not strict but it is based on Animal Fat,
mostly eat carnivore/keto

For the most part i agree with everything else you wrote.????

You are not reading my posts carefully.  You misunderstand what I am saying entirely.  I am not advocating that anyone follow my own personal nutritional protocol.  All that I am saying in all of my posts is that people should base their nutritional beliefs on the underlying science, not the fads.

 

My message is very simple!  The moment you use terms like Keto, OMAD, IF, Carnivore DIet, Basic AF, etc... it's obvious you are not basing your decisions on the actual underlying metabolic science of nutrition, and instead are basing it on fad diets promoted by health gurus who cherry pick bits and pieces of information that supports their own personal narrative.  That can only make you a follower, not a true thinker.

 

I am NOT a believer in any of the tags you speak of.  I used to do that until I realized I was just being lazy and found it easier to accept other people's interpretation of the science.

 

When I talk about carbohydrates, calories, obesity, Diabetes, high fat vs high carbs, etc... I am talking about biochemical based science, and WHY I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE.  That is quite different from advocating that you follow my own personal protocol.

 

WHen I say to explore the underlying science,  I'm NOT talking about only looking at research studies that support your preconceived notions, but objectively exploring information that not only supports what you believe but also contradicts it.  Constantly challenging your beliefs is the key.

 

That takes detached objectivity and a LOT of due diligence.  Even when you have the confidence you are on the right track, you have to still be flexible in your thinking to adapt to changing science.  Therefore I don't think of nutrition as a specific "diet".  Rather it is an  evolving lifestyle, and a lifelong pursuit.

 

The ONLY message I offer on this thread is to ignore third-party interpretations of science, and do the hard work of exploring the science FOR YOURSELF!  As long as you are willing to simply accept other people's interpretation of the science, you will never find the truth.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

15 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

You are not reading my posts carefully.  You misunderstand what I am saying entirely.  I am not advocating that anyone follow my own personal nutritional protocol.  All that I am saying in all of my posts is that people should base their nutritional beliefs on the underlying science, not the fads.

 

My message is very simple!  The moment you use terms like Keto, OMAD, IF, Carnivore DIet, Basic AF, etc... it's obvious you are not basing your decisions on the actual underlying metabolic science of nutrition, and instead are basing it on fad diets promoted by health gurus who cherry pick bits and pieces of information that supports their narrative.

 

I am NOT a believer in any of the tags you speak of.  I used to do that until I realized I was just being lazy and found it easier to accept other people's interpretation of the science.

 

When I talk about carbohydrates, calories, obesity, Diabetes, high fat vs high carbs, etc... I am talking about biochemical based science, and WHY I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE.  That is quite different from advocating that you follow my own personal protocol.

 

WHen I say to explore the underlying science,  I'm not talking about looking for research studies that support your preconceived notions, but instead approaching nutrition objectively and exploring information that not only supports what you believe but also contradicts it.  Constantly challenging your beliefs is the key.

 

That takes a LOT of due diligence and it takes a long time to find a protocol that works for you, and even when you have the confidence you are on the right track, you have to still be flexible in your thinking to adapt to changing science.  Therefore I don't think of nutrition as a specific "diet".  Rather it is an  evolving lifestyle.

 

The ONLY message I offer on this thread is to ignore third-party interpretations of science, and do the hard work of exploring the science FOR YOURSELF!  As long as you are willing to simply accept other people's interpretation of the science, you will never find the truth.

 

 

I think we just have admit our body is self regulated and can adopt to many different diets within the limits of healthy amount and balanced. Self regulated means it adopt to the environment and can be sustainable for a longer period. 
 

Science on diets is hard to produce evidence because we are all different, with different activity level, body composition and metabolism as age also plays a huge role for each and one of us. 
 

15 hours ago, patman30 said:

There are no IF plans (except from sites wrongly using IF for clicks)
IF refers to the eating window, or non eating window
there is no diet as such, that is seperate
and could consist of any foods
you can do IF eating steak everyday
or you can do IF eating gummy bears
IF just like OMAD is NOT a diet but an eating pattern.

I agree 

[patman30]

25 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

You are not reading my posts carefully.  You misunderstand what I am saying entirely.  I am not advocating that anyone follow my own personal nutritional protocol.  All that I am saying in all of my posts is that people should base their nutritional beliefs on the underlying science, not the fads.

 

My message is very simple!  The moment you use terms like Keto, OMAD, IF, Carnivore DIet, Basic AF, etc... it's obvious you are not basing your decisions on the actual underlying metabolic science of nutrition, and instead are basing it on fad diets promoted by health gurus who cherry pick bits and pieces of information that supports their own personal narrative.  That can only make you a follower, not a true thinker.

 

I am NOT a believer in any of the tags you speak of.  I used to do that until I realized I was just being lazy and found it easier to accept other people's interpretation of the science.

 

When I talk about carbohydrates, calories, obesity, Diabetes, high fat vs high carbs, etc... I am talking about biochemical based science, and WHY I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE.  That is quite different from advocating that you follow my own personal protocol.

 

WHen I say to explore the underlying science,  I'm NOT talking about only looking at research studies that support your preconceived notions, but objectively exploring information that not only supports what you believe but also contradicts it.  Constantly challenging your beliefs is the key.

 

That takes detached objectivity and a LOT of due diligence.  Even when you have the confidence you are on the right track, you have to still be flexible in your thinking to adapt to changing science.  Therefore I don't think of nutrition as a specific "diet".  Rather it is an  evolving lifestyle, and a lifelong pursuit.

 

The ONLY message I offer on this thread is to ignore third-party interpretations of science, and do the hard work of exploring the science FOR YOURSELF!  As long as you are willing to simply accept other people's interpretation of the science, you will never find the truth.

 

 

What you describe is literally labeled as Keto.
as i said i agree with what you wrote
but you label a label as a fad
then go on to describe the benefits of said label.

i would agree, what is commonly referred to as "facebook keto" is to be avoided
any product that has "keto" on the packaging is just a gimmick and to be avoided

and i never stated you were advocating anything
just pointing out the very good points you made are basically a keto diet (not talking about weight loss)

[patman30]

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I think we just have admit our body is self regulated and can adopt to many different diets within the limits of healthy amount and balanced. Self regulated means it adopt to the environment and can be sustainable for a longer period. 
 

Science on diets is hard to produce evidence because we are all different, with different activity level, body composition and metabolism as age also plays a huge role for each and one of us. 
 

I agree 

even though i have observed
keto works
carnivore works
reducing eating frequency (not calories) works
i do believe our DNA plays a part for our individual optimal diet
i also believe the human body must go through stages, like seasons
where we have certain foods/nutrients available and times when they are not
i am against this DV nonsense put out
as humans having a daily amount of all nutrients every day would have been an impossible task
our bodies also adapt to the supply.
Having said that, foods of past also had a much higher nutrient count due to better soil which has been destroyed over past 100 with monocropping and chemical fertalisers

[Hummin]

13 minutes ago, patman30 said:

even though i have observed
keto works
carnivore works
reducing eating frequency (not calories) works
i do believe our DNA plays a part for our individual optimal diet
i also believe the human body must go through stages, like seasons
where we have certain foods/nutrients available and times when they are not
i am against this DV nonsense put out
as humans having a daily amount of all nutrients every day would have been an impossible task
our bodies also adapt to the supply.
Having said that, foods of past also had a much higher nutrient count due to better soil which has been destroyed over past 100 with monocropping and chemical fertalisers

All the additives that is new to us the last 70 years have an impact for sure, as well most is now sitting all the day for work, and the food options on every corner, and never feel a bit hungry anymore. Craving is not hunger! 
 

For me personally had great success with a light keto diet with alot of fish, cheese, fat milk, roast beef, beef, chicken, little bit carbs from oat and rue cracker bread, banana as only fruit, and fresh vegetables every day. One eating day a week and useally big fat pizza. No alchohol consumed for 8 months. 
 

16kg 3 months no starving, no cravings, and alot of energy. Total colary intake pr day except saturday 1750 c. 
 

Now im doing blanced diet 1750c a day no alchohol or any sugar drinks or food with added sugar. All food is home made with no additives. 16 hours fasting two meals a day. This is because Im not exercising 5 days a week at the moment. I have a fruit snack in the middle of day and coconut water. So far feels good with same feeling as I had on my Keto light diet. My mind feels clear, positive, happy, libido on top, and thats a rally good motivation to continue. 

 

I believe motivation is the biggest contributor for success and feeling it works, as well just a little bit understanding of composition of food. Self manipulation as well placebo is also great contributors. 

[eezergood]

17 hours ago, patman30 said:

Pork Belly = 518 Calories/100g

yes RAW - I recant, I think 2000g is probably closer to 7500 cals. Again you did NOT do this for days on end and see no ill effects, total rubbish

 

10,000 cals/ day is a huge amount regardless of the number of feeding times, unless you are 280-300 lbs human? 

[Hummin]

57 minutes ago, eezergood said:

yes RAW - I recant, I think 2000g is probably closer to 7500 cals. Again you did NOT do this for days on end and see no ill effects, total rubbish

 

10,000 cals/ day is a huge amount regardless of the number of feeding times, unless you are 280-300 lbs human? 

10 000 calories is a diet for extreme athletes and those who go on a longer polar expedition lasting months. Not any ordinary human manage to eat. Not even in pure fat you will manage to eat 10k calories every day. That should be about 1,5 kg pork fat to manage. Good luck

[Hummin]

Research has shown that a typical male elite cross-country skier must consume 7,000 to 8,000 calories a day — more than three times the caloric needs of an average male — to meet the energy demands of the sport. Female elite skiers must eat about 3,500 to 4,000 calories a day — about double the calories consumed by the average woman. (A Swedish study found that during the hardest training days it can reach 8,126 for men and 4,780 for women — about double the calorie needs of Kenyan marathon runners.)

What does it take to consume 8,000 calories — the equivalent of about 20 plates of lasagna or 40 scoops of ice cream — every day?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/sports/olympics/cross-country-skiing-food.html

[patman30]

1 hour ago, eezergood said:

yes RAW - I recant, I think 2000g is probably closer to 7500 cals. Again you did NOT do this for days on end and see no ill effects, total rubbish

 

10,000 cals/ day is a huge amount regardless of the number of feeding times, unless you are 280-300 lbs human? 

i done that for 2 weeks solid while i was physically working on my land all day
before and after i was on my usual food of around 2kg of lamb or beef per day in a 4 hour window
roughly 5000-6000 calories/day, weighing ~80KG
TBH i never use scales when eating keto/carnivore as weight loss is not the goal, fat loss is.
to be more specific, the using of excess stored energy and body running optimal is the goal.
no ill effects, done carnivore for about 4 years, no ill effects
stopped carnivore when wife pregnant to help her eat more
gained 20kg of fat in 8 months eating what most people perceive as a "very healthy diet"

was always hungry and tired, that's me.

yes raw, if you have ever been to a mookata
you will notice when cooking the juices and fat run into the stock
i eat all that too

Edited November 30, 2022 by patman30

[patman30]

24 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Research has shown that a typical male elite cross-country skier must consume 7,000 to 8,000 calories a day — more than three times the caloric needs of an average male — to meet the energy demands of the sport. Female elite skiers must eat about 3,500 to 4,000 calories a day — about double the calories consumed by the average woman. (A Swedish study found that during the hardest training days it can reach 8,126 for men and 4,780 for women — about double the calorie needs of Kenyan marathon runners.)

What does it take to consume 8,000 calories — the equivalent of about 20 plates of lasagna or 40 scoops of ice cream — every day?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/sports/olympics/cross-country-skiing-food.html

300g Ribeye is 1000 calories
when you do not eat the fries or potato or other foods
it's pretty easy to get through a good few steaks
i can quite easily eat 2KG of meat per day

not saying this is what is needed but it is easily done
on the other hand i can also go without food for days at any time when eating like this

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, patman30 said:

300g Ribeye is 1000 calories
when you do not eat the fries or potato or other foods
it's pretty easy to get through a good few steaks
i can quite easily eat 2KG of meat per day

not saying this is what is needed but it is easily done
on the other hand i can also go without food for days at any time when eating like this

The whole point is to have a diet that is not monoton and also sustainable for the long run. Food is a social thing, and going extreme is not in most peoples interest because we also trying to live a enjoyable life, and food is an important ingrident to exactly the very same. 

[patman30]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

The whole point is to have a diet that is not monoton and also sustainable for the long run. Food is a social thing, and going extreme is not in most peoples interest because we also trying to live a enjoyable life, and food is an important ingrident to exactly the very same. 

"not saying this is what is needed"
i am not advocating what i do is for everyone
and personally i do not care what others want or think about my food, it is not a social thing imo
eating socialably is the worst thing for your own diet.
i also do not care what others think is "sustainable" for the long run
as a lot of opinions are misguided and mostly just signalling virtue
it is not extreme as i said "easily done"
and myself when eating carni, i do not count or monitor anything, i just eat.
just because i can work out the details later, does not mean i start out with this intention, strict yes, but not extreme,
raw vegan is extreme imo, and so is raw carnivore

"Sustainability" IMO
Monocrop farming and chemical fertalisers are destroying the planet.
To improve health people should be eating more meat not less.
Most seed oils are just poison for the body.
Byproducts are the less profitable part.

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, patman30 said:

What you describe is literally labeled as Keto.
as i said i agree with what you wrote
but you label a label as a fad
then go on to describe the benefits of said label.

i would agree, what is commonly referred to as "facebook keto" is to be avoided
any product that has "keto" on the packaging is just a gimmick and to be avoided

and i never stated you were advocating anything
just pointing out the very good points you made are basically a keto diet (not talking about weight loss)

I think you are missing my point, even though i appreciate that we seem to be more or less on the same page . 

 

The reason I get upset when I hear the term "keto diet" is because the popular concept of it does not acknowledge what the real cause of obesity is in the first place.

 

The real cause of obesity is not excessive calories.  The real cause is a metabolic imbalance caused by too many consumed carbohydrates.  This is not a biased theory.  It is a basic biochemical fact that has been well understood by scientist for decades.

 

The human body is intended to be fueled by BOTH glucose and fats equally...BUT stored body fat can not be accessed until glycogen stores start to become depleted.  This is also not a biased theory.  It is simply a biochemical reality. If glycogen stores are always full (i.e.: you are always in a fed state), the body is incapable of breaking down stored body fat from triglycerides to fatty acids which can be used as fuel.  It's really that simple!

 

So, always being in a fed state (i.e.: eating meals throughout the day and snacking in between) prevents the body from accessing stored body fat, and over time, this state becomes the "new normal" so that if you miss even one of those snacks, you will feel hungry, and now you are on the slippery slope to becoming obese.

 

All that a "keto diet" is supposed to accomplish is to break this cycle so that the proper metabolic balance between glucose and stored fats can be restored.  THAT is the ONLY goal of inducing ketogenesis. 

 

Thus, it is not a weight loss diet at all. The goal is not to be in a ketogenic state until you are no longer fat, or to practice it as a lifestyle.  The goal is simply to restore the metabolic balance between how the body uses glucose and stored fats.

 

Once that happens, then it is simply a matter of controlling carb intake so this balance is not lost.  If it is maintained, the human body is perfectly capable of restoring proper levels of stored fat.  In other words, you will shed the extra fat...BUT it is not a "keto diet, or any other diet that makes that happen.  It is simply your own body doing it naturally.

 

When people don't respect the underlying metabolic science, and instead think that that the solution is to just cut calories, they are doomed to failure.  Caloric restriction diets have been around for over one hundred years under all sorts of names, and yet not one of them has ever worked in the long run.  The fact that obesity is now considered an epidemic in most Western countries is all the proof you need that conventional weight loss diets simply do not work.

Edited November 30, 2022 by WaveHunter

[patman30]

21 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

All that a "keto diet" is supposed to accomplish is to break this cycle so that the proper metabolic balance between glucose and stored fats can be restored.  THAT is the ONLY goal of inducing ketogenesis. 

 

Thus, it is not a weight loss diet at all. The goal is not to be in a ketogenic state until you are no longer fat, or to practice it as a lifestyle.  The goal is simply to restore the metabolic balance between how the body uses glucose and stored fats.

The goal of Keto you state, does not sound like a fad to me
it sounds like a healthy diet, something which should be done long term

 

i have pointed out numerous times, i am never referring to "weight loss" when i state diet
a "diet" is simply what you eat

i think you under estimate other peoples understanding, for those actually eating this way for health
and you are conflating people treating a diet like a fad, with the diet itself being a fad
this was my original point, these are not fad diets, but simply labels given to certain diets that fit the label
yes in general many dont look into the workings or understand a diet
yes many wrongly assume "diet" means weight loss when they hear/read it

now in contrast, another you mentioned
The Atkins diet is a fad weight loss diet imo, as it is basically keto for a few weeks then back on the carbs
a diet that cannot be healthily sustained is a fad diet, keto, carnivore, paleo do not come under this
"Facebook Keto" is for fad people, those who dont want to eat healthy just want to lose some weight so they can eat more junk, an example of facebook keto is just add more cream or butter to your cake until its keto????‍♂️ or "it says keto on the package"????‍♂️

[BigStar]

On 11/28/2022 at 5:31 PM, scubascuba3 said:

Newsflash, Potatoes  (carbohydrates) are good for you and helps you lose weight. I appreciate the carb phobic people won't like this news

 

 

https://www.gbnews.uk/health/eating-a-common-vegetable-is-the-key-to-losing-weight-research-study-claims/397453

The key aspect of our study is that we did not reduce the portion size of meals but lowered their caloric content by including potatoes.

 

OH. Yep. reducing caloric intake does work. Hence Twinkies worked in the so-called Twinkie diet.

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, patman30 said:

The goal of Keto you state, does not sound like a fad to me
it sounds like a healthy diet, something which should be done long term

 

i have pointed out numerous times, i am never referring to "weight loss" when i state diet
a "diet" is simply what you eat

i think you under estimate other peoples understanding, for those actually eating this way for health
and you are conflating people treating a diet like a fad, with the diet itself being a fad
this was my original point, these are not fad diets, but simply labels given to certain diets that fit the label
yes in general many dont look into the workings or understand a diet
yes many wrongly assume "diet" means weight loss when they hear/read it

now in contrast, another you mentioned
The Atkins diet is a fad weight loss diet imo, as it is basically keto for a few weeks then back on the carbs
a diet that cannot be healthily sustained is a fad diet, keto, carnivore, paleo do not come under this
"Facebook Keto" is for fad people, those who dont want to eat healthy just want to lose some weight so they can eat more junk, an example of facebook keto is just add more cream or butter to your cake until its keto????‍♂️ or "it says keto on the package"????‍♂️

You sound like you are well versed in nutrition but my posts are directly more towards people who only get their information from seeing a few You Tube video (mostly directed towards weight loss). 

 

My point is very simple.  The human body has a remarkable ability to maintain a proper and healthy ratio of stored fat vs lean body mass provided there is a hormonal balance.  By "hormonal balance" I simply mean where insulin levels are able to get low enough to allow stored body fat (triglycerides) to easily be converted to fatty acids that can be burned as fuel.  That shift can not happen efficiently if you are continually in a fed-state since your glycogen levels will always be too high to allow that to efficiently occur.

 

The whole point of getting yourself into a ketogenic state is simply to restore that balance quickly; in a sense to shock the body with a hard reset and really nothing else. 

 

It only takes a week or two for that to occur.  In sports nutrition circles, it's referred to as becoming "fat adapted" or "keto-adapted" and it's practiced by many endurance athletes to optimize fat metabolism, and thus avoid the need for things like sports gels and energy drinks.  It's done for a week or two, and then the athletes return to consuming as much carbs as they desire.  The goal is basically to restore the body's ability to efficiently utilize stored fat as a fuel source.

 

Like many things in human physiology, if something is not regularly used, it becomes atrophied.  If muscles are not worked, they get smaller and less strong.  It's no different in fat metabolism.  If the body is not regularly made to shift from burning glucose to burning stored fat, it becomes less able to do so.  IMO THAT IS THE CAUSE OF OBESITY, not simply consuming too many calories. 

 

IMO, Ketogenesis is simply a fast and efficient way to restore this ability to shift from glucose to fat as a fuel source, which is referred to as fat-adaptation or keto-adaptation.  I think it should be considered as a short-term strategy, not a long term lifestyle

 

Once fat adaptation is achieved there is no need to continue such a rigorous regime , and who would really want to?  I mean limiting yourself to less than 50g of carbs a day is not very pleasant!.  Once you are fat adapted, all that's required is to make sure that optimal hormonal balance is maintained. You don't have to limit carbs to do that; you just need to make sure your body deplete glycogen daily to the extent that fat metabolism can efficiently occur. 

 

Athletes do it simply through exercise, and they can do that while consuming copious amounts of carbs since they are easily burning them off.  Less active people just need to either eat less carbs or space their consumption of them to an extent that glycogen stores are not always in a fully fed state...and that does not require abstaining from carbs or keeping them below 50 grams per day which is the usual keto benchmark.

 

I embrace this, and it works for me, allowing me to lead an active lifestyle without restricting carbs to an uncomfortable level.  If I occasionally cross over the line, which easily happens during the holidays or on vacations, a multi day (i.e.: 72 hours) water fast is my preferred way of restoring metabolic balance so I don't really think of that as "keto".   

 

What I am real rigorous about though is allowing enough time between meals so that I know my glycogen stores get depleted often enough to maintain good fat metabolism.  If I am exercising intensively (i.e.: 5K runs, long bike rides, etc) I don't really need to think about it, but if not, than I just eat once a day.

 

I'm not advocating that to anyone else unless they first understand the underlying physiology of it all, but it actually has a number of benefits that go far beyond what merely being in a ketogenic state can provide, but that's another topic entirely.

 

Anyway, bottom line...getting into a ketogenic state (eating under 50g of carbs per day) is a short term strategy for restoring metabolic health, not something I would adopt as a long term nutritional lifestyle.  I have NEVER implied that carbs in themselves are bad for you; what is bad for you is being in a continually fed state with them to the point that you are no longer fat-adapted (as defined above).

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by WaveHunter