The Low Carb Myth

There it is, the book that finally provides insight in the science behind all fad diets, including why some work and health risks. No new fad diet will ever be the same. High-fat/ low-carb diets are not the solution, they are part of the problem. If the BP works for you, read why it does. If you don't lose weight and/or feel crappy, you really MUST read it. I'm talking about Ari Whitten and Wade Smith, The Low-Carb Myth, just released and available on Amazon.com.

Insulin spikes are NOT the cause of insulin resistance or diabetes, in fact a smart high-carb diet can reset your insulin resistance in just 3 weeks. The best thing about this book, is that it can help you to achieve your goals in a smarter and more sustainable way than the diet guru's promise.
«1

Comments

  • Star ChaserStar Chaser Powered by Shred
    This didn't sound like a sales pitch at all.

    I am a Video Game composer under the pseudonym Star Chaser.

    twitch.tv/starchaservgm (streaming most saturday and sunday nights EST)

    Guitarist:

    https://youtu.be/8L0SkovqEf4

    Next cover is Die by the Sword by Dragonforce.

    Music/Health/Biohacking Blog and Podcast currently under construction.

    Thanks to the internet, health experts, and my unending curiosity, I have overcome: excessive sweating (adrenal fatigue), anxiety and panic attacks, extremely high estrogen levels (man boobs), chronic brain fog (yeast overgrowth), depression, and am currently battling SIBO (took it from being so bloated it felt like my stomach skin was going to rip, slept 2 hours per night for a week because of upset stomach and being chronically fatigued to very mild, manageable but still annoying symptoms) and currently battling sleep deprivation/insomnia probably due to the SIBO/Leaky Gut and resulting histamine intolerance.

  • WalterWalter ✭✭✭

    'Myth', 'fad' and 'guru' are certainly words that indicate a book worthy to be read.


  • The latest dieting fad is to dissmiss Paleo/Low Carb as a fad :-)

  • I downloaded a copy of this book a few days ago - if you understand the following the book is useless crap:


     


    - LCHF makes you full and creates an energy deficit so you lose fat


    - LC isn't necessary for good health and higher carb intakes are fine


    - Calorie counting/tracking can be helpful 


    - Some people need to eat more carbs, some people need to eat less


     


     


    If you don't know that, well now you do.  There is low carb dogma.  I even see it on this forum and espoused by Dave.


     


    What bothers me about these new dieting books (Diet Cults - is another good example) is the hypocrisy of it.  Here's a direct quote from the book:


     


    "eat as if you owned an organic farm next to an ocean.  Eat what you could grow, catch, or kill, but most important eat what you like and what makes you feel well".


     


    So basically - he wrote a book bashing Paleo while recommending Paleo.


     


    Welcome to the new dieting fad.

  • Keep dreaming, it's easier than reading.
  • edited February 2015

    @Maureen22 - I did read the book.  Did you read it all the way through?


     


    They mock Dave and say his diet doesn't include any fruits, veggies or starches.  I looked it up for you it's at Location 3573 in Kindle. They link  to a picture on Facebook of Dave eating a bunless burger and that's proof that he advocates nothing but protein and fat.   


     


    If you look at the Bulletproof Diet infographic you'll see that it clearly has veggies fruits and starches. Why misrepresent his work?


    What was the point of doing that?  Dave has talked extensively about how going extreme low carb can be dangerous.  


     


    So...why is this Sciencey book just making shit up?  


     


    And why does it spend the last few chapters promoting some bullshit diet book called "Forevah Fat Loss!".

  • WalterWalter ✭✭✭


    Keep dreaming, it's easier than reading.




     


    If you have any way to optimize the Bulletproof diet based on this book, do share. We are all here to learn.

  • The authors of the book are fighting someone who left a 2 star review of the book.  


     


    http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R16AU9DCQWNULH/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00TA48K8Q


     


    Both the authors are ganging up.  Looks like Bulletproof got brought up.


     


    I'm so old I still remember when no one cared about what you ate.

  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭
    edited February 2015

    hi @vkhare, can you do a quick search in the book pls...does fructose get much of a mention/discussion (if so, anything catch your eye/interesting)


    fake it till you make it

  • Hey Daz -


    Yes, they attack Robert Lustig on the fructose issue. They basically reference this article:


    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/


    Here's an article from Taubes on fructose:


    http://www.epic-summit.co.uk/blog/is-sugar-toxic/
  • pieholepiehole
    edited February 2015

    vkhare,


     


    The author was interviewed on the Ask Altucher podcast. James asked about his diet and after hearing his answer i had the same thought.


     


    "So basically - he wrote a book bashing Paleo while recommending Paleo."


  • WalterWalter ✭✭✭


    Hey Daz -


    Yes, they attack Robert Lustig on the fructose issue. They basically reference this article:

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

     




     


    The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with apredominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity. Pointing the finger at fructose while dismissing dosage and context is like saying that exercise should be avoided because it makes you fat and injured by spiking your appetite and hurting your joints.

     



     


    Nice article, they criticize Lustig and then conclude about the same. What a waste.

  • Yes, I read the book all the way. For years I've been thinking that insuline resistance is what makes you fat. I have read Gary Taubes and a lot of other books and it seemed plausible at the time. The reason I' so happy with this book, is that I already had grave doubts about the 'carbs make you fat' hypothesis, but couldn't find easily accessible sources explaining why. The insuline theory has been extensively tested and proven wrong in the '80s, when most scientific articles were not yet digitalized.

    Another misconception the book clarifies is that burning ketones doesn't necessarily mean that you are burning body fat. Low-carb diets work just the same as other weight loss programs, you are in a calory-deficit state. The reason why low-carb diets work better in the short run is, that it is easier to suppress hunger. The long-term effect of any calory-restrictive regime is that it downregulates your metabolism.

    The book doesn't attack the bp or paleo but some of the key underlying assumptions.

    As for my inclusion of the bp diet in the fad category, that is and was my own opinion. I do like the taste of bp coffee just fine, but some of the claims about it are just outrageous. I took the trouble to check many references in Asprey's book and found them not too convincing.

    Since I live in Europe, mycotoxins in coffee are probably not so much an issue here. I have been on a low-carb diet for a long time, and the best it does for me is preventing rapid weight gain. Low-carb has given me severe nightly muscle cramps (no, magnesia suppletion doesn't work for me),severely increased my sensitivity to carbs and exacerbated my atrial fibrillations. Slowly increasing carbs seems to work, I sleep better and the frequency of atrial fibrillations seems to go down.
  • RekaReka ✭✭✭

    Does it give any answers? I agree with the negatives it states (it's not all about carbs and insulin, or ketosis) but it also promises some "answer" or "secret" and I'm curious what that is. I know it's probably nothing new for us but still I want to know what conclusion it arrives at.


    It doesn't get easier... It's you who gets better.

     

    Is your social worker in that horse?

     

    Success has a price, not a secret.



  • The book doesn't attack the bp or paleo but some of the key underlying assumptions.

    As for my inclusion of the bp diet in the fad category, that is and was my own opinion. I do like the taste of bp coffee just fine, but some of the claims about it are just outrageous. I took the trouble to check many references in Asprey's book and found them not too convincing.




     


    =======


     


    Hi Maureen -


     


    I did find the tone to be off putting.  Even listening to Dave I hear him talk about how extreme low carb is problematic.  Go read Robb Wolf, he says the same.  Just about everyone seems to be saying low carb can be problematic.  


     


    The book doesn't help you to address these problems short of "eat more carbs".  I think that advice will definitely help some and they can still lose weight and it could derail others completely.  


     


    The book also equates low carb with some extreme vegan diets.  It's true these vegan diets can help reverse diabetes but they are completely devoid of meat which in the long term is going to go against your health.  


     


    ====


     




    Does it give any answers? I agree with the negatives it states (it's not all about carbs and insulin, or ketosis) but it also promises some "answer" or "secret" and I'm curious what that is. I know it's probably nothing new for us but still I want to know what conclusion it arrives at.




     


    ====


     


    It tells you to eat more carbs and that you're a "guinea pig" because high fat / low carb is without precedence in the history of our evolution.  You can also give up low carb and try the Mediterranean diet.


     


    You can also buy their program "Forever Fat Loss" for more answers.  

  • RekaReka ✭✭✭


    =======


     


    Hi Maureen -


     


    I did find the tone to be off putting.  Even listening to Dave I hear him talk about how extreme low carb is problematic.  Go read Robb Wolf, he says the same.  Just about everyone seems to be saying low carb can be problematic.  


     


    The book doesn't help you to address these problems short of "eat more carbs".  I think that advice will definitely help some and they can still lose weight and it could derail others completely.  


     


    The book also equates low carb with some extreme vegan diets.  It's true these vegan diets can help reverse diabetes but they are completely devoid of meat which in the long term is going to go against your health.  


     


    ====


     


     


    ====


     


    It tells you to eat more carbs and that you're a "guinea pig" because high fat / low carb is without precedence in the history of our evolution.  You can also give up low carb and try the Mediterranean diet.


     


    You can also buy their program "Forever Fat Loss" for more answers.  




     


    Thank you for the summary. Looks like no real new info, just the usual "you can buy something with a sensational name". :D Since they list several things which are NOT the problem, I expected more of their opinion about what IS the problem.

    It doesn't get easier... It's you who gets better.

     

    Is your social worker in that horse?

     

    Success has a price, not a secret.

  • Does it give any answers?

    No, not specifically, but it helps to avoid some traps if low-carb or paleo doesn't work anymore for you. Atkins' advice to remedy a 'plateau' was to go on a fat fast. Which will definitely NOT help. Dave indeed cautions against very low carb, but the bp diet is still low-carb, even with the regular carb refeeds. You will find in his book very little info about the mechanisms behind the adverse effects of low-carb. If you want to avoid these risks, it comes in handy if you know how it works.

    By the way, vegan diets are HIGH carb and mostly low fat and most vegans are very thin.
  • @Rekah -


    Agreed. I would love to see a book that just goes over how to use low carb effectively as a "bridge" to better health. How to improve insulin resistance, how to get into a more sensible way of eating etc..for the long term.
  • Most of Daves information I find to be very useful. But on the other end I do find I feel the best if I eat at least 100g of carbs per day. Low carbs puts me into fatigue.




  • By the way, vegan diets are HIGH carb and mostly low fat and most vegans are very thin.




     


     


    It's true - vegans are the skinniest of all- even skinnier than the vegetarians:


     


    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672%2813%2901113-1/abstract


     


    But they're also the nuttiest ;-)

  • The macrobiotic diet, also heavily criticized inThe Low Carb Myth, by the way, is not vegan. They eat fish. The ones I know are in excellent health. My sister was suffering RSI, my brother post viral syndrome, healed by the macro-idiotic diet. I know of others whose health greatly improved, despite the adzuki beans.
  • RekaReka ✭✭✭
    edited February 2015


    Does it give any answers?

    No, not specifically, but it helps to avoid some traps if low-carb or paleo doesn't work anymore for you. Atkins' advice to remedy a 'plateau' was to go on a fat fast. Which will definitely NOT help. Dave indeed cautions against very low carb, but the bp diet is still low-carb, even with the regular carb refeeds. You will find in his book very little info about the mechanisms behind the adverse effects of low-carb. If you want to avoid these risks, it comes in handy if you know how it works.

    By the way, vegan diets are HIGH carb and mostly low fat and most vegans are very thin.




     


     


    Fat fast like eating nothing else but fats? I see that advice going around here too, a lot. It made me gain. I only lost a ton of energy with that. This is what convinced me that insulin is far from being the only hormone in this, and it's role is very overrated.


     


    I see that Dave's system is still evolving a lot and becoming more realistic, also more inclusive towards women with our different needs, so I wouldn't be surprised if he would pay more attention to the problems caused by low carb in the future. I believe he should because the "eat more fat" approach only works for certain people. But he is also rather for brain health and lowering inflammation, I often feel that the claims about improving body composition are only included to attract more people because that's what the market is after. BP seems an open minded system to me so far so I trust that it will incorporate the best part of the criticism included in this book.


    It doesn't get easier... It's you who gets better.

     

    Is your social worker in that horse?

     

    Success has a price, not a secret.

  • According to Ray Peat, it's free fatty acids that contribute to degeneration of the islets of

    Langerhans. High fat diets contribute to FFF. He claims that glucose helps to restore the Langerhans cells. Fat fasts a la Atkins is no more than 1200 kcal from protein and fat, no longer than 3 days. In later editions of the new Atkins diet, he left it out.

    According to Ari Whitten, fatty acids can just enter the fat cells, without any insulin to push it. A high fat diet will, in absence of sufficient carbs, promote hyperinsulinemia, because the body tries to defend its poor sources of glucose. Not sure if this idea has been sufficiently backed up by good research, have to read it again. Anyway the cyclic ketogenic diet has not been researched. My experience so far is, that more low carb is not an answer to the plateau phenomenon. Neither is cutting back more calories. Whitten's other book, Forever Fat Loss provides some interesting strategies. My impression of this forum is that most members are relatively young, so their bodies can recover faster. I think old age comes with more constraints, what to think of statins, calcium blockers, ACE blockers, diuretics and proton pump blockers, that my age group frequently uses?


  • The macrobiotic diet, also heavily criticized inThe Low Carb Myth, by the way, is not vegan. They eat fish. The ones I know are in excellent health. My sister was suffering RSI, my brother post viral syndrome, healed by the macro-idiotic diet. I know of others whose health greatly improved, despite the adzuki beans.




     


    --


     



    The book really didn't do that.  In this section of the book, they cite a meta analysis and completely gloss over that the low carb diets were ad-libitum (meaning people can eat as much as they want) and they were as effective as low-fat.  That's a big distinction, completely neglected.  And again, using a term like "guinea pig" is close to fear mongering and irresponsible given that many people will need to adopt a low carb approach for medical reasons.  


     


     


    I think the type of diet that works for you will depend on you.  What's important is that you remain flexible and open minded.  My mother seems to do very well on a vegetarian diet, if she were  bit more open to getting some protein and DHA in her I think her health would be nearly perfect.  OTOH, same eating style worsened diabetes and resulted in a stroke for my father.  


     


    The common thread in all these studies / diets is eating real whole foods.  It's pretty much a solid scientific fact that eating meat is also advantageous to not eating it.


     


    As for legumes and grains - one thing that no one seems to be able to debunk is that once we adopted a legume/grain based diet we lost our stature in terms of height and started seeing more disease.  A diet heavily based on legumes / grains could definitely heal someone over a diet of McDonalds and cheesy poofs.  That doesn't mean it's optimal.  It's also worth noting that the grains/legumes historically have been prepared in a more meaningful way than we do today (with soaking, fermenting and sprouting).  


     


    I would say that we cannot define an optimal diet, but we can define an optimal template or set of rules which people can work off of to figure out what's best for them.



     


    - Lots of plants


    - Lots of healthy meat sources


    - Healthful oils for cooking:  Olive, Coconut, Ghee


    - Lots of water, moderate coffee and tea


    - Optional: grains / legumes / dairy - pay special attention to quality and preparation


    - Personalization - eliminate stuff that you don't respond well to

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    --


     



    The book really didn't do that.  In this section of the book, they cite a meta analysis and completely gloss over that the low carb diets were ad-libitum (meaning people can eat as much as they want) and they were as effective as low-fat.  That's a big distinction, completely neglected.  And again, using a term like "guinea pig" is close to fear mongering and irresponsible given that many people will need to adopt a low carb approach for medical reasons.  


     


     


    I think the type of diet that works for you will depend on you.  What's important is that you remain flexible and open minded.  My mother seems to do very well on a vegetarian diet, if she were  bit more open to getting some protein and DHA in her I think her health would be nearly perfect.  OTOH, same eating style worsened diabetes and resulted in a stroke for my father.  


     


    The common thread in all these studies / diets is eating real whole foods.  It's pretty much a solid scientific fact that eating meat is also advantageous to not eating it.


     


    As for legumes and grains - one thing that no one seems to be able to debunk is that once we adopted a legume/grain based diet we lost our stature in terms of height and started seeing more disease.  A diet heavily based on legumes / grains could definitely heal someone over a diet of McDonalds and cheesy poofs.  That doesn't mean it's optimal.  It's also worth noting that the grains/legumes historically have been prepared in a more meaningful way than we do today (with soaking, fermenting and sprouting).  


     


    I would say that we cannot define an optimal diet, but we can define an optimal template or set of rules which people can work off of to figure out what's best for them.



     


    - Lots of plants


    - Lots of healthy meat sources


    - Healthful oils for cooking:  Olive, Coconut, Ghee


    - Lots of water, moderate coffee and tea


    - Optional: grains / legumes / dairy - pay special attention to quality and preparation


    - Personalization - eliminate stuff that you don't respond well to




    The problem with Paleo debunk books is that they're very carb apologist. I think we all talk about "low carb" and conflate low-carb dieting with the movement, because what we're really trying to say is you need less carbs and sugars. Even if it's not insulin that's the problem—maybe it's that sugar/carbs are the primary source of calories in the Standard American Diet, therefore their processed forms have risen to the most prominence and are so readily consumed. So, maybe Paleo gurus are really indirectly telling you just to eat whole foods, but the best way to that goal is to say eat less sugar/carbs (ice cream, chips, spaghetti, bread, pizza, bagels, doughnuts, cereal). Once those things are eliminated (and a lot of them happen to have gluten), you've pretty much eliminated all of the worst offenders of the SAD. We might as well make some catchy acronym of those foods and call it the anti-*ACRONYM* diet. 


    And to be fair, people really do lose weight on a low-carb diet. It's hard to call it a myth when you have so many people showing awesome before-and-after photos. At some point it starts to become common knowledge that it makes you lose weight. Whether you keep it off that way is a different story, and that's where maintenance comes in. The people embarking on these diets need to know that the low-carb works for the initial part and then you have to start thinking differently for maintenance. It's almost like they shouldn't be allowed to know that unless they've "graduated" the weight-loss phase.



  • The problem with Paleo debunk books is that they're very carb apologist. I think we all talk about "low carb" and conflate low-carb dieting with the movement, because what we're really trying to say is you need less carbs and sugars. Even if it's not insulin that's the problem—maybe it's that sugar/carbs are the primary source of calories in the Standard American Diet, therefore their processed forms have risen to the most prominence and are so readily consumed. So, maybe Paleo gurus are really indirectly telling you just to eat whole foods, but the best way to that goal is to say eat less sugar/carbs (ice cream, chips, spaghetti, bread, pizza, bagels, doughnuts, cereal). Once those things are eliminated (and a lot of them happen to have gluten), you've pretty much eliminated all of the worst offenders of the SAD. We might as well make some catchy acronym of those foods and call it the anti-*ACRONYM* diet. 


    And to be fair, people really do lose weight on a low-carb diet. It's hard to call it a myth when you have so many people showing awesome before-and-after photos. At some point it starts to become common knowledge that it makes you lose weight. Whether you keep it off that way is a different story, and that's where maintenance comes in. The people embarking on these diets need to know that the low-carb works for the initial part and then you have to start thinking differently for maintenance. It's almost like they shouldn't be allowed to know that unless they've "graduated" the weight-loss phase.




     


    The problem is distinguishing between the the two variables. Was it a low carb diet or a calorie restricted diet which was responsible for fat/ weight loss. 


     


    Until very recently I thought my weight/fat loss was attributed to low carb dieting. What changed my mind was an experiment where I added 400-800 calories a day to my diet, essentially just eating more of the things I generally eat. After two months I gained 10lbs most of which was fat.


     


    After other carb experiments I have at least convinced myself that getting enough carbohydrates is essential for my health and well being, a problem I see with describing something as low carb is that it is just too damn vague. I try to eat around 70-100g net carbs per day and I would call that low carb, but what others would call that I don't know? 

    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭
    edited February 2015


    ... a problem I see with describing something as low carb is that it is just too damn vague. I try to eat around 70-100g net carbs per day and I would call that low carb, but what others would call that I don't know?




    Jaminet now uses the term moderate carb to describe his diet (phd), which is around 30-40% carb cals (safe starches) from memory.

    33% & below, I would call low carb ie.1/3 or less carb cals.

    & ~50g net carbs & below I would call vlc (very low carb).

    & then there is zc or zero carb.


    note. even say a 50% carb cal diet is likely a lowER carb diet when compared with the SAD

    fake it till you make it

  • fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.
    edited February 2015

    i'm just confused about this whole low carb thing.


    my take on the bullet proof diet isn't that it's low carb


     


    at least not low carb like ive done before.


     


    the BP IF diet is definitely lower carb(except for refeed), but dinner can have 40 grams of carbs easy, if you have a sweet potato and/or a generous helping of a vegetable and bp dessert.


    there is room to move the carb slider to optimize. The refeed days are not low carb?


     


    I think people underconsume vegetables. think a bag of broccoli or cauliflower. not some dinky side dish amount.


     


    I've had success on extremely low carb and low carb. (not saying my health was a success just the fat loss)


    i've had my best success with BP IF. 


    i'm not shy about eating a ton of vegetables. love the dessert. sweet potatoes and butter!


     


    its tempting to try to swing the heavy hammer of low carb, especially if youve had success with it before.


     


    I think it (bp IF) works best if you arent exercising. I dont see any reason why a BP diet cant work well with excercise.


    it'd probably be awesome.


     


    exercise introduces a dynamic set of variables to BP IF that require an intimate knowledge of your body and whats going with it.


    either way, I have noticed a need to supplement with vitamins. I'd not want to try it BP IF and exercising, and I know my body pretty well. 


     


    do I have it wrong about what is BP and what BP IF is?


    it could be lower carb or it isn't necessarily... it can be/is both actually. 


     


    one tweak i do is add veggies occasionally to my lunch. (I'm still doing BP IF)


    sometimes I go 3 days before doing that and adding more carbs to dinner.


    sometimes it's 4 or 5 days between refeed or just higher carb days


     


    I have read through the book once and refer back for recipes 


    it seems like a very effective set of guidelines that allows for adjusting variables to suit a broad range of tolerances while maintaining something thats in the ballpark.


    it's up to us to put it through the uprights. 


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 2015


    i'm just confused about this whole low carb thing.


    my take on the bullet proof diet isn't that it's low carb


     


    at least not low carb like ive done before.


     


    the BP IF diet is definitely lower carb(except for refeed), but dinner can have 40 grams of carbs easy, if you have a sweet potato and/or a generous helping of a vegetable and bp dessert.


    there is room to move the carb slider to optimize. The refeed days are not low carb?


     


    I think people underconsume vegetables. think a bag of broccoli or cauliflower. not some dinky side dish amount.


     


    I've had success on extremely low carb and low carb. (not saying my health was a success just the fat loss)


    i've had my best success with BP IF. 


    i'm not shy about eating a ton of vegetables. love the dessert. sweet potatoes and butter!


     


    its tempting to try to swing the heavy hammer of low carb, especially if youve had success with it before.


     


    I think it (bp IF) works best if you arent exercising. I dont see any reason why a BP diet cant work well with excercise.


    it'd probably be awesome.


     


    exercise introduces a dynamic set of variables to BP IF that require an intimate knowledge of your body and whats going with it.


    either way, I have noticed a need to supplement with vitamins. I'd not want to try it BP IF and exercising, and I know my body pretty well. 


     


    do I have it wrong about what is BP and what BP IF is?


    it could be lower carb or it isn't necessarily... it can be/is both actually. 


     


    one tweak i do is add veggies occasionally to my lunch. (I'm still doing BP IF)


    sometimes I go 3 days before doing that and adding more carbs to dinner.


    sometimes it's 4 or 5 days between refeed or just higher carb days


     


    I have read through the book once and refer back for recipes 


    it seems like a very effective set of guidelines that allows for adjusting variables to suit a broad range of tolerances while maintaining something thats in the ballpark.


    it's up to us to put it through the uprights. 




     


     


    I think you're doing it absolutely right if you're getting good results on no exercise. I do it with exercise and a ton of food intolerances. Even with exercise, I do BP IF once in awhile. I don't do very well when I'm ketogenic, though, but I'm trying that again today incidentally (a non-workout day). I think someone told me I shouldn't do ketosis if you work out, but I want to try it and see what happens, because my weight keeps going up (though that could just be muscle gain or some of both). I definitely eat more though when I have carbs. Carbs have a magical way of making you crave more carbs and more food in general, don't they?


     


    I'm fairly convinced that carbs are the fat storage/insulin resistance instigator. They're important for that glycogen replenishment, though, so the balance you talked about is so right. 


    I have a weird relationship with carbs, too, because I had a mold/yeast issue. Whenever I used to eat it, I used to feel weak and have more inflammation. So there was a parasitic component to carb consumption. There still kind of is, if I go WAY overboard or have really sugary carbs like honey. I've only just now gotten to where I can eat like a half sweet potato or anywhere close to a cup of rice. You guys have no idea what it's like having this kind of carb sensitivity. It sucks!


     


    I used to read a lot about carbs, and people like Dave and Mark Sisson have said that eating carbs is "only for healthy people." I think that this insulin resistance and candida thing, which are probably not too far off from each other, is the determining factor. However, it's almost like you can be too sick to do ketogenic, too. That's what I was like. Believe it or not, the only happy middle ground I could find, because of how sick I was, was to eat slow-digesting carbs that all the stupid Dean Ornish type nutritionists recommend, because it allowed me to have some glucose so my liver wouldn't go haywire from ketogenesis, while still avoiding the liver trouble (from fructose) and candida flare-ups from excess glucose my insulin wasn't processing. This is how I see it all as going down anyway. Whatever I did, I became more and more Bulletproof as time went on, and it definitely worked, but I had to be very creative with how I did my carbs.


     


    Oh, and by the way, on the ketogenic diet (no starchy veg., only green), I almost lost my gallbladder, but I lost about 50 lbs. all told, so that's why I'm convinced that carbs are the most significant factor in weight loss. I've also seen my Dad lose tons of weight going low-carb. He always gains it back, though, because he hasn't figured out a way to maintain it.


  • fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.
    edited February 2015
    have you tried using bp chocolate, cacao butter and eryth xyl sweetener + bp oils to carb up?

    basically make the bp choco bars. its a bit pricey but id be curios to see how itd  work to supplement your carbs. not sure how advisable eating 36 additional grams of chocolate a day is.should/may be fine.

    i made chocolate using honey, for 4 chocolate bars each the size of two reeses cups. i used a heaping tbl spn of honey. surprised me how sweet it was.

    almond butter or walnut butter added was pretty good.

     


    I think carbs are a cyclical thing. you edge out fat loss and then bring back the carbs a bit, then back off. if going for significant or sustained fat loss.


    it's like two or three steps forward and one step back on fat loss, or if you're lucky just a momentary halt of fat loss with no gain.


    I need carbs and the amount isn't static. I really have to be mindful between a craving and a glutenous rampage. usually a bag of veggies and sweet potato settle that, in addition to the bp chocolate pudding. i do even give in to having my favorite hazlenut chocolate bar. ive done that three time in 2 months, and two refeed days involved 2 non bp cheat dinners.


     


    the success on the sustained low carb keto diet was painful, it works but I have huge doubts on its healthfulness. its an easy premise to latch on to is why its so prevalent.


     


    the long term abatement is still the big mystery/challenge. I can ride it in terms of slowly gain 10 pounds and then lose it when things get tight.


     


    also... strangely or not on the BP IF i get into ketosis quick. probably the fast part helps tremendously.


    just eating fat and protein before was a fight. it took two days or 3 to get a solid reading on a keto stick.


    how long I can stay there changes and ignoring my body's demand is more counterproductive than useful. I have to resist the urge to let sustained ketosis be the long term heavy hitter. its deceptive.


     


    maybe call the BP IF diet, the Intermittent or cyclical carb diet. 


    i cant say its a low carb experience. it is definitely the current apex of a process of trial and error and the evolution of my fatloss experimentation. i'm sure its not the end all be all but it is excellent progress. i feel like the chimp to walking man poster.  i'm somewhere in the middle looking back at the primitive chimp or less evolved man. future me is looking back in the same fashion.


     


    or maybe the bp diet is more a tool kit of experimentation. its really the first time for me there were parameters that encouraged experimentation rather than rote rules.


    its the discover how your body works diet. 


Sign In or Register to comment.