Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To stay in ketosis

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    We can all only speak for ourselves--although some on this thread seem to think that their experience is universal.

    Only speaking for myself, I happen to be extremely carb sensitive. In the past few years, I've lost close to 200 lbs by eating very low carb consistently because my 'limit' is about 25g carbs a day. Dr. Atkins proposed something he called a 'Critical Carb Level' for people like me. We 'test' our limits in 5g increments until our raging appetite returns and we begin to lose weight. I discovered this principle in 1972, when he first published. I tested myself at that time, and at intervals throughout the years. My CCL remains at about 25g.

    This is due to a metabolic dysfunction (according to Dr. A), but the positive aspect of it is that having stayed low carb for the past 5+ years, I have never felt better in my life--nor been healthier. At age 71, I take no Rx meds (my thyroid pills are supplemental hormones, and my doctor says they don't count as 'meds'). My rather severe osteoarthritis is controlled by diet and exercise--no meds. Because I'm hypothyroid, I have regular blood tests to check my hormone levels, and my endo usually runs a full blood panel--all my numbers are superb, as is my BP and blood glucose.

    I'm sure that others would be 'bored' or 'driven to carbs' by my WOE which is mainly fish, meat (mainly grass-fed bison & beef), and eggs (mainly egg whites to avoid the inflammatory effects of yolks). I have vegetables in small amounts. However, this way of eating is probably satisfying because of my unique metabolic situation--i.e., having found what foods are best suited to me, I have absolutely no desire to eat otherwise.

    For example, I love ice cream, and there are times that I miss it. But what keeps me from eating it is how I know I will feel in the hours and days that follow---and feeling dreadful isn't worth the momentary satisfaction that I would derive from Haagen Daz.

    I know that there are others like me. Some have difficulty becoming resigned to the need to limit carbs, but being carb sensitive is the reason many regain lost weight when they assume they can then return to the SAD.

    So in considering how anyone stays in ketosis--my point is that's a questions that depends on the person's CCL. Few people need to eat as low carb as I do, but no one can assume that their most comfortable carb level applies to everyone else.

    Comment


    • #47
      If you really only ate steak, eggs, and spinach doing keto then you were eating way more restricted than you had too.

      Even if we're talking technicalities like limits on dairy and protein (which will vary from person to person, right?) there are so many other animal bits to eat beside steak. Pork (bacon?). Fowl. Seafood. Avocados. Most vegetables. Cooked in lots of delicious fat, seasoned as you would under any other circumstances. Hell, CHOCOLATE. Melt a baking bar and sweeten it with stevia. Bake some jicama fries. Have some nuts.

      You really only ate steak, eggs, and spinach? Your blog and the stuff you post on this site is amazing food porn. I almost don't believe you.

      : )

      Comment


      • #48
        Here's a quote from The Fat of the Land.
        It has been considered strange by some...that extravagant praise of fat occurs neither in the usual conversation nor in the folk tales of Eskimos. The animals they hunt are usually so fat that when they have secured all the lean meat they need they have on hand more fat than they can use; so when they have eaten all they want there is enough fat left over for fuel and light. And as I keep saying in this book, it makes no difference how fond one is of fat, he is bound to turn against it as soon as he has had all that is good for him. Of all foods, fat is preeminently the one where enough is enough.
        On a page or two directly before this quote Stefansson has charts showing a steady rise in sugar consumption since the 1700s. By the 1940s it's almost 100lbs per person per year and doesn't include hidden sugars or honey. At the same time, there is a rise in fat consumption.

        But Eskimos living off the land in the early 1900s on their traditional diet eat boiled meat and fat from caribou, sea mammals, fish and birds and they don't get tired of it, they are not fat (except sadly the women over 40 tend to gain some weight), they have no bad teeth even though they do not brush their teeth and when this white dude adopts their diet he is happy and healthy on it, doesn't think it is bland or boring or anything. They also do not go hungry, frequently having to discard large bags of unwanted leftover animal fat.

        There's seriously a lot to learn from the old literature. There definitely IS an advantage to eating what humans ate in the wild and there definitely IS a disadvantage to eating cereal grains and sugar. It may not be so much about the calories as about matching the species correctly to its diet.
        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

        Comment


        • #49
          Assuming we are discussing a ketogenic diet for weight loss, any and everything can be incorporated depending on the creativity of the dieter. 25 g of carbs for induction is fine. For long term keto dieters, many can easily incorporate more carbs into their eating plan while maintaining a state of ketosis. Also, ketosis is the result of low CHO intake, not the result of high fat intake. A PSMF is also a ketogenic diet.
          Well, there is a statement that high protein intake interferes with the ketosis as well as high carbohydrate intake. The numbers that were calculated for me in the 'eat more fat!' thread for a good ketonic plan was initially 25 g net carb, 60 g protein; the protein thanks goodness was bumped up to 90 g when my activity level was taken into an account.

          I ate like that for a month.

          I lost initially, but in the end I regained, i.e. I did not lose anything. I mostly subsisted on macadamia nuts & coconut products, butter, cheese, a couple of eggs, celery, spinach and cauliflower with a small piece of fish or meat for supper (SPLURGE!) and broth. I have only realized how deeply fatigued & weak I was after I carbed up this weekend. Conclusions: for me it's not workable to sustain ketosis.

          But not because of the food choices.

          I can maintain this WOE, but I can't say it was extremely variable. Again, if you are not restricting for protein and your carbohydrate allocation is higher, it will be much easier, but there is still very low volume of food volumetrically.

          However, even with this restricted choices, overeating is a no brainer. 2 oz of macadamia nuts fly by quick with the morning coffee. Butter is easy to overeat, let alone cheese. And once we are into combining the best of the both worlds, nut butters are made for sitting there with your small spoon, and having foodgasm every time it touches your tongue. In non-treats world, literally pounds of broiled fresh sockeye salmon can make its way from my plate to my stomach day after day with no consequences. Same goes for roast chicken. I had to freeze pieces so they do not tempt me.

          There are things on ANY diet that I can eat in crazy quantities. You can limit me with any macros and conditions, and I will still find something I can eat endlessly. I guess, I agree with Choco here: the trick is shutting the hatch.
          Last edited by Leida; 10-22-2012, 12:16 PM.
          My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
          When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Leida View Post
            Well, there is a statement that high protein intake interferes with the ketosis as well as high carbohydrate intake. The numbers that were calculated for me in the 'eat more fat!' thread for a good ketonic plan was initially 25 g net carb, 60 g protein; the protein thanks goodness was bumped up to 90 g when my activity level was taken into an account.

            I ate like that for a month.

            I lost initially, but in the end I regained, i.e. I did not lose anything. I mostly subsisted on macadamia nuts & coconut products, butter, cheese, a couple of eggs, celery, spinach and cauliflower with a small piece of fish or meat for supper (SPLURGE!) and broth. I have only realized how deeply fatigued & weak I was after I carbed up this weekend. Conclusions: for me it's not workable to sustain ketosis.

            But not because of the food choices.

            I can maintain this WOE, but I can't say it was extremely variable. Again, if you are not restricting for protein and your carbohydrate allocation is higher, it will be much easier, but there is still very low volume of food volumetrically.

            However, even with this restricted choices, overeating is a no brainer. 2 oz of macadamia nuts fly by quick with the morning coffee. Butter is easy to overeat, let alone cheese. And once we are into combining the best of the both worlds, nut butters are made for sitting there with your small spoon, and having foodgasm every time it touches your tongue. In non-treats world, literally pounds of broiled fresh sockeye salmon can make its way from my plate to my stomach day after day with no consequences. Same goes for roast chicken. I had to freeze pieces so they do not tempt me.

            There are things on ANY diet that I can eat in crazy quantities. You can limit me with any macros and conditions, and I will still find something I can eat endlessly. I guess, I agree with Choco here: the trick is shutting the hatch.
            As with any diet, the results are going to vary with the individual. I think that was the whole point with Choco's statement being thought of as opinion. It's always helpful to hear how others fare with the different diet approaches. As demonstrated throughout this thread, there are a lot of different ways to go about following a ketogenic diet and it does take effort to diversify this style of eating to include a variety of meals (although not necessary).
            Having followed a ketogenic diet for over four years, I've learned to create keto versions of my favorite meals and snacks to satisfy cravings. The success came over time and was certainly frustrating in the beginning because I approached it also believing it was restrictive. I personally do not favor a CKD or SKD and find cravings difficult to manage. The TKD was much more easy to adhere to partly because of energy levels and daily diversity in food choices. Aside from the monthly hormonal changes, a higher fat intake keeps my cravings from becoming uncontrollable.

            Comment


            • #51
              So fat today I have eaten 1331 calories of which 57.8 grams were protein and 42.3 grams were carbs. I've had an omelette with red bell peppers, mushrooms and cheese, bacon, half a grapefruit, coffee with cream, a square of dark chocolate, a small amount of fresh coconut and some almonds and pecans, homemade icecream and a grass fed beef hamburger. We had dinner early since we have an apppintment around our normal dinner time. If I'm hungry later I'll have a mixed greens salad or some cooked spinach with butter and parmiseano reggiano cheese and a little Greek Yoghurt.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Leida View Post
                Well, there is a statement that high protein intake interferes with the ketosis as well as high carbohydrate intake. The numbers that were calculated for me in the 'eat more fat!' thread for a good ketonic plan was initially 25 g net carb, 60 g protein; the protein thanks goodness was bumped up to 90 g when my activity level was taken into an account.
                From what I have read protein may not be an issue....and I have NEVER tried to limit it. Here is some reading if your interested The Ketogenic Diet for Health: If You Eat Excess Protein, Does It Turn Into Excess Glucose? . They do note that more studies are needed to verify that this holds true in keto dieters.

                Comment


                • #53
                  The protein limitation is why I don't even try for ketogenic anymore. I feel better with a lot of meat and seafood.
                  Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Well, that was the first time I was doing a sustained ketonic diet, and I was surprised as well by the protein limit. When I do any version of cyclic, I hold my proteins at a 100-150 g to meet the normal 1 to 1.5 g LBM body building maxima. I also adhere to the no fruit, no dairy rule on the ketonic days because of insulin yada-yada-yada. I perhaps interpret ketonic more strictly than most. Again, it is psychotic to count celery sticks, but it is the only thing that works for me. MU's schedule won't work for my crazy body, not to mention I would be crying like a babe with hunger pangs by the time I have had her 2 meals.
                    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                      Here's a quote from The Fat of the Land.


                      On a page or two directly before this quote Stefansson has charts showing a steady rise in sugar consumption since the 1700s. By the 1940s it's almost 100lbs per person per year and doesn't include hidden sugars or honey. At the same time, there is a rise in fat consumption.

                      But Eskimos living off the land in the early 1900s on their traditional diet eat boiled meat and fat from caribou, sea mammals, fish and birds and they don't get tired of it, they are not fat (except sadly the women over 40 tend to gain some weight), they have no bad teeth even though they do not brush their teeth and when this white dude adopts their diet he is happy and healthy on it, doesn't think it is bland or boring or anything. They also do not go hungry, frequently having to discard large bags of unwanted leftover animal fat.

                      There's seriously a lot to learn from the old literature. There definitely IS an advantage to eating what humans ate in the wild and there definitely IS a disadvantage to eating cereal grains and sugar. It may not be so much about the calories as about matching the species correctly to its diet.
                      I've always disliked the Inuit argument because high fat traditional societies are exceedingly rare. Very few of us are descendants of cold-weather societies where fat was king. Life originated in warm weather climates where lean game meats, starches and fruits ruled.

                      Humans are adapted to eating starch. Hunter-gatherers show genetic evidence for selection for starch tolerance relative to other primates, and agricultural populations show even more (1). The vast majority of people who are reading this descend from agricultural populations that ate high-starch diets for thousands of years...Since the ancestors of most people reading this have probably been eating more starch than fat for a very long time, at a minimum thousands of years, but probably closer to a million (because African game meat tends to be pretty lean, and most peoples' ancestors never passed through far Northern latitudes where fat calories predominate), I think the "null hypothesis" should be that humans are best adapted to diets where starch predominates over fat. In other words, that should be the default hypothesis that requires evidence to disprove. The fact that there are so may healthy high-starch cultures, far more than there are high-fat cultures, adds to the weight of the evidence.

                      Whole Health Source: Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin
                      This is what I believe. I believe the ideal human diet to be equal or higher in starch than fat because that's what most of us descended from. Migration to cold weather climates is a fairly recent event. I eat fairly isocalorically - around 30% calories from fat, 35% calories from protein and 35% calories from carbohydrate. Of those carbs, it's about an even split between fruit and starch. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think this moderate approach would work the best for us in terms of health and performance. That's not to say fat is unhealthy. Quite the contrary. But I do not think a high fat diet is ideal, and I believe added oils outside of using them as merely a cooking tool is ill-advised. Ketogenic diets, in my opinion, should be used for medicinal purposes, like cases of severe metabolic syndrome or epilepsy. People with relatively normal metabolisms (the overwhelming majority of us) would do best to avoid removing an entire macronutrient from their diet IMO.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        I've always disliked the Inuit argument because high fat traditional societies are exceedingly rare. Very few of us are descendants of cold-weather societies where fat was king. Life originated in warm weather climates where lean game meats, starches and fruits ruled.



                        This is what I believe. I believe the ideal human diet to be equal or higher in starch than fat because that's what most of us descended from. Migration to cold weather climates is a fairly recent event. I eat fairly isocalorically - around 30% calories from fat, 35% calories from protein and 35% calories from carbohydrate. Of those carbs, it's about an even split between fruit and starch. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think this moderate approach would work the best for us in terms of health and performance. That's not to say fat is unhealthy. Quite the contrary. But I do not think a high fat diet is ideal, and I believe added oils outside of using them as merely a cooking tool is ill-advised. Ketogenic diets, in my opinion, should be used for medicinal purposes, like cases of severe metabolic syndrome or epilepsy. People with relatively normal metabolisms (the overwhelming majority of us) would do best to avoid removing an entire macronutrient from their diet IMO.
                        To further back this post, I present this paper, analyzing paleolithic nutrition: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v...f/1600389a.pdf

                        "Fruits, roots, legumes, nuts, and other non-cereals provided 6570% of the average forager subsistence base (Eaton &
                        Konner, 1985)..."

                        "...assuming a 65:35 plant:animal subsistence pattern [that considered most likely by anthropologists
                        (Lee, 1968)]..."
                        this great blue world of ours seems a house of leaves, moments before the wind

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          I've always disliked the Inuit argument because high fat traditional societies are exceedingly rare. Very few of us are descendants of cold-weather societies where fat was king. Life originated in warm weather climates where lean game meats, starches and fruits ruled.
                          Actually, this is not true. According to Stefansson, people in hot tropical climates also sought out fat. Here is a list of foods eaten in Liberia:
                          - Brisket of beef with fat and cartilage
                          - Skin and subcutaneous fat of wart hog and pig. Sometimes cow skin if soft enough.
                          - Hog's head, brains and head fat
                          - Liver of any animal
                          - Monkey hands and feet since these were the fattiest parts
                          - Since most African animals are very lean, they favored the fattier wild animals and the fattiest parts of those animals
                          - Giant rats which they called possums
                          - Domestic dogs that they fattened up specifically for eating
                          - Sterile cows that had never suckled a calf
                          - Porcupines and warthogs
                          - Python and mamba
                          - Leopards in their prime when they are fattest
                          - Snakefish, which is very fat.

                          "My own experience for twenty years as been that of a person very active physically, consuming meat whenever available in amounts comparable to that eaten in temperate climates. It was not unusual for us to put up a whole hog in tin cans for our personal use.

                          "Moreover, when meat was not available for making gravy, we had a gravy made of palm oil, flavored with meat stock or bouillon cubes, We had gravy three times a day and three hundred and sixty-five days in the year. We also used all the milk, eggs and butter we could get and the four of us consumed between one and two pounds of peanut butter a week.
                          ...
                          "Men who work in hot places (stokers) do not avoid meat and fats, rather the opposite."

                          Also, you think that the Inuit lived always cold. The description of their clothing and houses Stefansson provided made it sound as though they never feel any coldness at all living as an Eskimo. The only time they are miserable is in summer when it's too hot for their clothes and the mosquitoes are biting. Otherwise, he said you could sit out in -40 degree winter weather in their clothing and not feel cold at all even with your face and ears exposed. Inside their houses it was 60 degrees on the floor and up to 100 degrees near the ceiling. They all sat around naked sweating inside the house drinking ice water and eating fat and meat. They basically used technology to live tropical lives in the far north.

                          I have another book I downloaded called the Stone Age Diet written in the 70s I think. The description in there of all the parts of the digestive system of a dog, a sheep and a human make it pretty obvious that we have the same digestive system as a dog and therefore are meant to eat primarily animal foods. That we can get by on roots and tubers and vegetables is because that is what monkeys and apes eat and we share some genes. But monkeys and apes do not eat grains and that is why we get so sick on them. And even monkeys and apes eat meat from time-to-time.

                          Many cultures around the world ate some starch and plants. But they were not healthier the more starch and plant food they ate. All cultures around the world living in the wild sought out fat and animals. There were no vegans and there were no starch-only eaters or fruititarians.
                          Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            That is not an assumption of CICO. That is your assumption. CICO simply means you have to have an energy deficit to lose weight and an energy surplus to gain weight. That is fact.

                            Your math is all wrong because according to CICO, if you overeat 100 calories a day, you will gain weight - until that becomes your new maintenance - which happens rather quickly. Then, you will only gain weight if you further continue increase calories. This makes the entire rest of your post incorrect, which is why your math doesn't work out to reality.
                            So, you are saying that the 3500 calorie thing hasn't been part of the CICO party line for like ever? Funny, because I've been hearing it since probably before you were born.

                            As to what I think, I believe the last paragraph of my post shows that I said the mathematical approach didn't add up. I believe that perhaps some lab approach came up with the 3500 calorie measure. I believe that every body (and everybody) is different and that different approaches work for different people. I believe that most people, even those eating SAD on a restricted calorie diet, will most likely restrict carbs and sugars naturally if they have even a minor interest in health because you simply can eat a larger quantity of food eating a healthy 1200 calories than you can eating say 1200 calories worth of cookies (an extreme, I know).

                            Obsessing over carbs/protein/fat to me just gets unhealthy emotionally, imo. Sure, if you start at a place where you're eating pasta, beans, and cereal every day, or frozen burrito dinners, or from under the yellow arches, then you need to learn an overview of nutrition. And people with real negative reactions to certain types of food need to learn that. But once you learn that basically animals are protein and fat, basically veggies are carbs and sugar, with exceptions to both of those (avocados, olives, etc.), and that of the everyday fruits, berries tend to be lower in carbs than bananas and melons, do we really have to obsess on this?

                            Eat a lot of plants, animals, and bugs. Don't eat crap from chains, don't eat from boxes, cans, or bags. Stay away from stuff that has to be processed to death just to become palatable (grains, beans, etc.). Don't follow any health guru blindly - people who follow see a lot of ass.
                            "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                            B*tch-lite

                            Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I haven't read through all of this post,but when mark mentions carb count, does he mean net carbs or..well..carbs carbs? Which do yall count? I hope that makes sense. Im typing this on my phone so its kinda a pain to edit or go into much detail.

                              Thanks!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ashley.thepie.rat View Post
                                I haven't read through all of this post,but when mark mentions carb count, does he mean net carbs or..well..carbs carbs? Which do yall count? I hope that makes sense. Im typing this on my phone so its kinda a pain to edit or go into much detail.

                                Thanks!
                                All carbs including fiber:
                                "... all the calculations and zones in this book represent gross total carbohydrate grams." (Sisson, M., 2012, p. 96, The Primal Blueprint).
                                SW = 290, PSW = 290, CW = 228, UGW = 194
                                6'2" Male, Early 50's

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X