Varying between >50g and <50g carbs – Low Carb Flu? page 3

[paleo-bunny]

You call in "interpreting" I call it putting words in someone's mouth and you are doing it again. "determining everything" is not something I said.

I totally agree that when someone has been VLC for a long period of time, the ketostix become a less reliable metric and that there are other factors involved. That doesn't mean that carbs cease to be relevant.

Why are you even arguing? Can't we just discuss things instead? Chill, girl.

Er - I haven't claimed that carbs cease to be relevant.

Anyway, am happy to discuss things. I thought the whole idea of VLC was to be in permanent ketosis. I expect that's where you are, no matter what the ketostix say.

I spend several hours each day in ketosis and it's an easy transition for me, and I stay there until I eat some carbs. I'm happy with this.

It's good to hear that you have an open mind on this subject and are not dogmatic :-)

[Paleobird]

I think there is probably a wide range of opinions as to where the V in VLC starts or stops. I have never been a proponent of the extreme zero carb approach. I think that really limits one's available nutritional opportunities too much. Not to mention boring. Meat and meat with a side order of meat. Not for me.

For me the range that seems to work is 30-50 a day. I consider this to be LC but not VLC. If I slide out of ketosis by eating more carbs I just find that I get hungry and don't feel satisfied despite a higher intake of calories and weight loss grinds to a halt. YMMV


p.s. @mike_h, thanks for pointing out Peter Attia's blog. I took a look and found it to be very well written and well researched.

[paleo-bunny]

I've lost around 46 lbs of fat and gained 10 lbs of muscle eating 150-180 g carbs a day, which falls in Mark's 'insidious weight gain' range. However, I have been quite active, hence at least half of those carbs have been burned as fuel by my muscles.

I like my veggies too, so I would find it difficult to go VLC, or LC, however it is defined. I'm just carrying on with what's worked for me ... well so far, anyway.

[Paleobird]

Well done.

I think that "insidious weight gain" thing is probably true of people eating in that range if they are spending too much time watching Oprah and not exercising. The activity equivalent of the SAD. I don't think Mark ever meant for the numbers he states in the carb curve or anywhere else to be taken as a one size fits all.

Some people get way too hung up on the numbers as prescribed by <insert guru of the month>. I think the numbers (calories, carbs, ratios, etc.) do matter but each person has to find their own sweet spot. I sort of treat it as an ongoing science experiment with myself as the test subject.

[paleo-bunny]

Thanks. It's no big deal, really. Yes, I'm an outlier, who only put on a lot of weight through having to be inactive.

Spot on. I take the same approach of treating myself as an ongoing science experiment.

[Paleobird]

I'm kind of the same sort of outlier. I put on weight after having been in good shape all my life due to the inactivity forced by a series of operations for breast cancer and all the reconstruction that comes after.

I've lost 65 total, from 210 to 145. The first 30 fell off like magic just by restricting carbs. I had to dial back the portions to get the last 35. I'm more liberal with my carbs when I'm in the middle of climbing a mountain but lately I've been staying home to take care of my Dad so I have to restrict a little more. So, even for any one person, the numbers are not absolutes. They vary.

[paleo-bunny]

I'm kind of the same sort of outlier. I put on weight after having been in good shape all my life due to the inactivity forced by a series of operations for breast cancer and all the reconstruction that comes after.

I've lost 65 total, from 210 to 145. The first 30 fell off like magic just by restricting carbs. I had to dial back the portions to get the last 35. I'm more liberal with my carbs when I'm in the middle of climbing a mountain but lately I've been staying home to take care of my Dad so I have to restrict a little more. So, even for any one person, the numbers are not absolutes. They vary.

That is an awesome weightloss, and congratulations on beating breast cancer. I hope you have the all clear now.

My Mum survived bowel cancer last year, and my maternal Grandmother died of cancer of the pancreas. I guess the odds are stacked such that I will get cancer at some point in my life, but I try to remain positive.

[Paleobird]

That is an awesome weightloss, and congratulations on beating breast cancer. I hope you have the all clear now.

My Mum survived bowel cancer last year, and my maternal Grandmother died of cancer of the pancreas. I guess the odds are stacked such that I will get cancer at some point in my life, but I try to remain positive.

Thanks. I just got my five years post cancer check-up and everything came back all clear. Just because it's in your family doesn't make it inevitable. But you do have to be more cautious about preventative exams like mammograms and pap smears. My oncologist told me that the best thing I could do to prevent a recurrence was to get the excess weight off of me. That's when I went low carb. Survival is a much stronger motivator than vanity could ever be.

[Omni]

Fairly new to this, but have done a lot of reading over the last few years regarding diet, health, autoimmune diseases etc.
My understanding is that there are three main basic states of metabolism:
1 - Full Glycolysis , where the bulk of the population is with high carb intake, insulin resistant and virtually no Ketolysis taking place.
2 - Balanced Glycolysis & Ketolysis, low to moderate carb intake i.e. Low GI & Low GL, this is where most of us want to be where we are insulin sensative, the body can take full advantage of both energy sources in the most effective way.
3 - Full Ketolysis, no carb intake and the body utilises just fat for energy supply
There is also Proteolysis which also occurs most of the time to some degree, but leave that one out for now.
The body can easily go up the scale from full Ketosis to full Glycolysis without much transitional disturbance, but coming back down there is a significant period of adjustment required. If we are not too Insulin resistant, going from 1 to 2 is about a week or two of sugar craving, but going from 2 to 3 and getting into full ketosis requires a minimum of a week in which performance is reduced, some lethargy and mood upsets, if any carbs are consumed the transition clock is reset and you start again.
Everything I have read about this indicates you can not just slip into ketosis without suffering the transition period.
Once in full Ketosis, overall performance is as good or better with the exception of excessive repeated high energy expenditure sprints. If anyone has information to the contrary I would like to read it as we are all still learning.

[Paleobird]

Fairly new to this, but have done a lot of reading over the last few years regarding diet, health, autoimmune diseases etc.
My understanding is that there are three main basic states of metabolism:
1 - Full Glycolysis , where the bulk of the population is with high carb intake, insulin resistant and virtually no Ketolysis taking place.
2 - Balanced Glycolysis & Ketolysis, low to moderate carb intake i.e. Low GI & Low GL, this is where most of us want to be where we are insulin sensative, the body can take full advantage of both energy sources in the most effective way.
3 - Full Ketolysis, no carb intake and the body utilises just fat for energy supply
There is also Proteolysis which also occurs most of the time to some degree, but leave that one out for now.
The body can easily go up the scale from full Ketosis to full Glycolysis without much transitional disturbance, but coming back down there is a significant period of adjustment required. If we are not too Insulin resistant, going from 1 to 2 is about a week or two of sugar craving, but going from 2 to 3 and getting into full ketosis requires a minimum of a week in which performance is reduced, some lethargy and mood upsets, if any carbs are consumed the transition clock is reset and you start again.
Everything I have read about this indicates you can not just slip into ketosis without suffering the transition period.
Once in full Ketosis, overall performance is as good or better with the exception of excessive repeated high energy expenditure sprints. If anyone has information to the contrary I would like to read it as we are all still learning.

It is not necessary to have zero carb intake to be in ketosis. It just needs to be low. Exactly how low varies by the person.

Also it is possible to go into ketosis and stay there with absolutely no "suffering the transition" involved. I did. I am probably not typical in this respect as I never was much of a carb or sugar eater to begin with, just those healthy whole grains now and then because I thought I was supposed to. So this is also something that varies by the individual.

While in ketosis, I can do wind sprints like nobody's business. I don't know if what I do is what you would characterize as "excessive" however.