And like you, I see what I believe to be true in some of the long sermons, but to think that you have all the answers is a clear sign of ignorance or at least a lack of creativity.
Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.
Personally - I honestly do love all the arm-chair experts. Sometimes it makes me roll my eyes, but the majority of the time it makes me think about things in other ways that may or may not be relevant to me at that time.
Most people discuss things based on their life experiences. Chat rooms allow people from all over the place to come together and throw ideas around.
The part that irks me - I don't dismiss the experience of others, and I assume that what they write here is an accurate description of that experience.
I fully understand that some don't like ketosis, and that some have had bad experiences with it. If high carb works for you - perfect!!! Please accept that low carb works for me, and that I just might not fit into your dogma.
As RichMahogany is saying, wouldn't it be more helpful to ask why this has been my experience than to dismiss it altogether?
"It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan
Maybe it's because ketosis is a metabolically advantageous state. Under CICO dogma, there's no such thing. If you're losing weight, you have to be eating less and/or moving around more. Are you overreporting your calories and/or underreporting your activity, as Gorbag would accuse you? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean it's not a plausible explanation.
The point is that of course, it's not, as some claim, the only explanation. It only becomes the only explanation to call you a liar if you assume (or prove?) that metabolism is fixed. I'm certainly not of that school of thought, it belies the evidence I've come across as well as what my personal experiences suggest.