[_brnu]

I actually agree with most all of your posts. The one big difference, though, in my opinion, is that when adapted to a very low carbohydrate diet, it's actually easier for me to not eat. That's it. To me, it's the lone advantage. It's not about the palatability of the low-carb meals. It's that I just seem to be less hungry. I can skip a meal and it's no big deal. When I'm higher carb, missing a meal takes a way bigger toll.

One other thing I'd offer -- for long endurance activities at higher heart rates (e.g., cycling in zone 4 for more than an hour), you absolutely have to supplement with carbs. You can go a long time in Zone 3 on a low carb diet, but as exertion increases, you burn through those sugar stores and bonk. I've tested this repeatedly. In case it's helpful to others, you can consume quite a bit of sugar on a hard ride and be right back in ketosis hours later as your muscles take up the glucose first.

[windexh8er]

When you state "very low carbohydrate diet" - what do you mean? Do you mean you're actively avoiding fruits and vegetables, oats, nuts, etc? Or are you avoiding processed foods and the carbs that go along with that? The "carbs are the devil" argument is a huge misconception with people.

You mentioned that it's easier for you to not eat on a very low carbohydrate diet. My main eating regimen is two feeding periods that are generally between 12:00P and 8:00P. My diet is mainly plant based, so very high in unprocessed carbohydrates - and I do still eat fish and am also not opposed to eggs from time to time. I have no problem not eating. If I don't eat at all until the early evening I am generally never hungry.

So I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by "high carb". Processed carbs and satiety don't go hand in hand, but a "high carb" intake of whole foods is not remotely the same.

[PudgePacket]

It's a tricky subject because everyone uses different definitions of "low carb". I've seen positions from dietary bodies that define "low carb" as less than 40% of your total caloric intake from carbohydrates, which is still a massive proportion.

That is why "very low carb" was introduced, obviously still not ideal.

For _me_, I'd say I eat very low carb, I aim for max 10-20g of total carbs a day.

Yes people tend to get stuck on "carbs" as a single entity and demonise it, which helps nobody.

My perception is most people on low/very low carb diets avoid as much processed food as possible, then get their remaining carbs primarily from non-starchy vegetables like broccoli, spinach, kale, etc.

[hcurtiss]

By "high carb," I only mean to suggest easily-digestible high-glycemic index carbohydrates. I really do think there's something to the blood glucose spike and crash cycle and its relationship to satiety. I suspect you agree with that. However, whether through plants or other foods, I think it's the fat that most effectively satiates. You can get those fats through nuts and plant oils, but I find it's easier and tastier to get it through butter, eggs, and red meat.

[windexh8er]

With regard to agreement, not exactly. There's a lot of research around high fiber intake being one of the most prominent indicators of satiety [0]. Keep in mind most all meats are densely loaded with calories compared to whole plants. Fats are less satiating than fiber in many studies [1]. Hence it's far easier to overconsume fats via meats because no meat contains fiber and, again, is more dense per gram with regard to fat.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-018-0295-7

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53550/

[hcurtiss]

I don't actually read either of your linked studies to support what you say. But be that as it may, I think fiber is also satiating. It's just difficult to hit my macros when eating all broccoli. Broccoli, butter, and steak, on the other hand, is a nearly perfect meal. I get the sense you're invested in a plant-based diet. Good for you! I'm sure there are way to engineer the outcomes you want with plants.

[bad_user]

The postprandial hypoglycemic episodes are very rare in people that don't have diabetes, being most of the time a sign that the first-phase insulin action is impaired.

T2D is a disease of glucose intolerance, but diabetics actually deal with two problems ... insulin resistance, which the keto people focus most on, but they also deal with impaired insulin action, i.e. the ability of the pancreas to respond is impaired. What happens is that the first-phase insulin action is delayed such that later insulin action is exaggerated, causing the subsequent blood sugar crash.

And this is still not T1 diabetes, there are people in which insulin action is impaired before the insulin resistance sets in and it's still classified as T2D.

Keto proponents love to talk about this problem, but it's not a common phenomenon, not even in people that are overweight or pre-diabetic.

---

Speaking of which the Keto diet does lead to impaired insulin action, coupled with physiological insulin resistance — mostly due to the "glucose sparing effect", a natural phenomenon that's reversible — but this is why the ocasional treat can send your blood glucose through the roof.

When people on Keto start measuring their glucose, they are surprise to discover just how much the starchy treats can raise their blood glucose, however this effect is misleading, because you wouldn't get the sugar spike if you weren't on Keto ;-)

This is one of the reasons why endocrinologists recommend diets that are over 100 grams in carbs per day to T2 diabetics. Because a very low carb diet requires total compliance, otherwise those hyperglycemia spikes can wreak havoc.

Keto proponents don't like to admit, but high carb diets made mostly of whole plants can be even more effective in keeping blood sugar in control, in dropping HbA1C and in losing weight.

---

> "I think it's the fat that most effectively satiates"

This is a myth. Fat might be more satiating per gram, but not per calorie.

If you look at the satiety index, the foods that are most satiating tend to be low in fat and many of those items are high in carbs (by keto standards). We are speaking of items like boiled potatoes, legumes or vegetables, or lean meats like chicken breast or cod. Potatoes are what you call a "high-glycemic index" food and yet boiled or baked potatoes stay on top in every satiety test.

You should be able to see for yourself actually — compare chicken breast with chicken thigh. Same animal, same kind of protein, different fat and calories amount per gram. Eat the same amount of calories on different days and see how you feel. We have a brain hardwired to seek foods high in calories and a chicken thigh is less satiating than a chicken breast simply because the former has more calories due to the fat and thus we end up liking it more.

More importantly we've got studies on the subject and high fat diets lead to less satiety and more calories being eaten versus low fat diets:

https://europepmc.org/article/med/9225171

Also see this paper on the Swedes:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281229072_Politiciz...

---

N.b. foods like boiled eggs are satiating in spite of the fat — unless you're talking about protein and "protein leverage", fat and carbohydrates are energy macros and do not promote satiety in any way, unless you're talking about fiber.

So what promotes satiety is:

1. fiber and volume (found in whole plants)

2. protein (e.g. the "protein leverage" theory, which is still under debate, but at least we've got some evidence for it)

3. blandness

Reasons (2) and (3) are the real reasons Keto works short term. But appetite always comes back, esp in a high fat diet. When I was on Keto I used to binge eat plain full fat butter and used to eat 1 Kg of grilled fatty pork cuts in a single sitting. And I gained weight of course.

[tracker1]

I'd say modern grains and "vegetable oil" are probably the biggest issues... heritage grains in moderation are more okay. We take in a lot of refined grains and sugars. And cook everything in oils people wouldn't recognize as food a couple hundred years ago, let alone trans fats.

That combined with a huge uptick in constantly eating all the time, sugary drinks, etc... eating 6-8 times a day. Most people can get away with 1-2 meals a day and a small snack or coffee outside those main meal(s). Longer fasting has historically been involuntary and/or religious, has other benefits that should be included pretty regularly as well.

I think animal proteins and fats are good to keep, even just eggs, butter and fish. There's a lot of nutrition in egg yolks, kidney and/or liver meat and it isn't the same from vegetable sources. Animal protein is also a bit different in terms of absorption than vegetable as well. It's not hard for people to get 100-150g of appropriate protein a day on average either and doesn't have to come from higher animals.

[bad_user]

There is no evidence available that "vegetable oil" is unhealthy in any way, other than the calories.

There is no good evidence for example that "Omega-6" rich oils are inflammatory, quite the contrary, we've got several systematic reviews and meta analyses claiming they are not. And the n-6 : n-3 ratio is completely arbitrary (most ratios in nutrition are). We've got much better evidence for example that saturated fat does raise LDL and that LDL is causal in heart disease.

There's also nothing wrong with eating 6 times per day, unless you end up eating too many calories. If you meant to say that people eat too much, then yes, we do eat too much, but meal frequency has nothing to do with it. Many people can easily eat 4000 kcal in a single meal and those with binging problems often do, so while reducing meal frequency can be a good strategy for some people, it's a poor strategy for others. E.g. OMAD is a recipe for eating disorders.

We do agree that animal products can be part of a healthy diet, it's much easier to get adequate protein from lean meat, eggs are a good source of choline, folate, vitamin A and dairy is a good source of calcium. In the standard diets of the western worlds however, we have no shortage of animal products, what we have is a shortage of whole plants.

[tracker1]

Modern grain varieties don't resemble their heritage counterparts. Modern wheat (since the 70's) sees something like 19x the immune response. As to seed oils, frankly I just don't see a need to support heavily processed and refined foods in general, in particular margarine and vegetable shortening.

As far as over-eating and meal frequency... hormones are part of the calculation, you can clear more calories with less hormone response in fewer meals. If you look at tribal cultures with a food abundance (near coastal fish) would only eat once a day or so. Spiking glucose/insuline more times a day isn't so great in general.

I think we're mostly on the same page... I'm more than happy to see people eat more from whole plant meals with a more nose to tail approach to meat consumption. Not to mention a huge a shift in the types and qualities of meat and fish.

I think the level of refined sugars, oils and modern grains are a big problem... so is, for that matter, poorly raised animals and mono-farming in general. Optimizing for yield and efficiency seems to have lost a lot along the way imo.

One aside, while some can eat massively in a single meal... it's very hard for most people to overeat in a single meal. Harder still to do it consuming meat/eggs/fish and greens. Calories count, calories are king in terms of what we eat... and hormone response is queen.

[com2kid]

I disagree a bit about the zone 4 thing.

https://imgur.com/a/HvHcOFV

I quit that workout because I got /bored/.

I've done 4 hour MMA training sessions in Keto, no endurance issues at all, no HR strap though so no #s.

[kyuudou]

I disagree partly here based on personal experience with BJJ. I simply cannot summon fast-twitch muscle "burst" cardio on a full keto diet. After months of trying all kinds of workarounds, I had to carb-load with glucose pills (the kind diabetics take) the night before and pre-workout.

Long-term steady endurance massively increases though. If there's no bursting, I find that I can workout for hours on keto, it's amazing. It's kind of like the difference between regular diesel engines and gasoline+nitrous engines. Patience and focus seriously improve as well.

My limited understanding is that glycogen stores in muscles get depleted on full keto and must be replaced with some kind of carb intake, whether through excess protein-to-carb conversion or through normal carb intake, that "burst" energy simply isn't going to be there.

Example: I'm on the bottom in full mount and I know I need to burst to sweep somehow or shrimp out after bucking. Energy just wasn't there, time and time again. I could do jumping jacks forever, though.

I'd love to hear your feedback on this, like, what your protein intake is vs. fats.

[com2kid]

> I disagree partly here based on personal experience with BJJ.

My experience includes BJJ! :)

Of note I've been keto adapted for years, so I am likely an edge case.

That HR recording I linked to is of a kickboxing endurance bag workout (Bas Rutten's routine if you are at all familiar with it), nothing but explosive power against a bag, every punch 100%.

Now at the end of it, can I lift as heavy? No, carb load and I'm adding an extra few pounds to the bars, but it isn't a huge difference.

> I'd love to hear your feedback on this, like, what your protein intake is vs. fats.

I stopped tracking years ago. Probably should start tracking again just to lose some extra lbs. :) Outside of weight loss I do keto just because of the insane energy levels.

The kicker about BJJ is that after class, these guys who are much stronger than me are winded and I'm walking around upset no one wants to keep training. Everyone is doing crap like sitting down and resting!

[kyuudou]

Awesome, thanks for the reply! Yea, I was trying to find a way to have a permanent high-fat keto diet for BJJ but it just wasn't happening. It was kind of a personal experiment and I was pleased with the outcome. Great way to drop a few extra pounds before weigh-in, though. Discrete carb-loading is unavoidable, though.

>The kicker about BJJ is that after class, these guys who are much stronger than me are winded and I'm walking around upset no one wants to keep training. Everyone is doing crap like sitting down and resting!

As you probably know, they are Doing It Wrong. Most of the higher belts I've known are skinny (sometimes barrel-fat) and not mega-huge muscular because their technique is orders of magnitude better so they don't need to rely on muscling everything. My main professor always skips the heavy warmup on his days and just does enough to get the blood flowing and joints warm which is funny - he's really good.

I really started to think about this once I got my ass handed to me by a teenage girl purple belt who couldn't have weighed more than 90 lbs wet. I was trying on purpose not to use my size and strength but quickly realized my technique was much worse than hers. One of the great benefits of BJJ is this kind of instilled humility. Not much room for silverback gorilla bullies.

Now, competition, particularly no-gi, is a whole different ball game in my experience. There, maximizing strength to weight ratio is of crucial importance because the other person is supposed to be of roughly equal technique and when it comes down to it, whoever's stronger usually has a better chance.

[rtkaratekid]

You’re correct here. The long, low intensity type work lends itself to ketosis well, but power and strength not quite as much. This is because of the metabolic availability of energy from the two pathways.

To throw my own anecdotes in, I’ve done more than a few 24-48 hour efforts (backpacking, mountaineering, cycling, climbing) with a range of dietary strategies and so far I’ve felt the best with bacon, hard boiled eggs (with some salt and pepper), and water.