Questions without Answers

toadqueen

I too have fibromyalgia. I feel better on keto and best water fasting. The latter is unsustainable of course. I fasted in 2012 for 30 days and felt great most days. I was just very bored because I like to eat. I did all my usual activities including working full-time and exercise.

Meeezonajourney

Ok so I have noticed an interesting hunger pattern. On the weekends I can eat my normal breakfast and not be hungry until dinner. During the week though at work I eat the same breakfast and feel like I'm going to naw off my hand by lunch. I drink lots of water and a cup of coffee but I don't know what it is. Also I can feel starving all day at work but when I get home I don't rush to make dinner and feel more in control. I'm wondering if I'm just bored or what. I don't have the urge to eat the crap that's provided for employees but it's starting to make me nuts. Maybe I just need therapy. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

wabmester

@Gnulie, all I can tell you is that the environment makes a huge difference to me. At home, where I have complete control and low stress, I'm invincible.

At work, I often have to literally chew on a problem. Mindless snacking is a bad habit for me when I'm faced with a tough problem. I guess it's a form of procrastination or some sort of mental white noise so I can focus better.

No suggestions from me, since it sounds like you're already handling it better than I would.

camtosh

nvsmomketo wrote: »

I've got one. What is the neagtive aspects of being keto long term? I'm wondering about 10-20 years from now.... if I'm still doing it.

Check out Dr. Bernstein's blog and books -- he has been doing lchf since the early 1970s. He is type 1 diabetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_K._Bernstein#Biography

professionalHobbyist

Skipping breakfast is often the best way to start my day except after a hard lifting evening

It seems to be the least important meal

How does this effect brain function?

wabmester

@pro, at lot of people report an elevated mood with fasting. It might increase endorphin production, but I'm not sure you'll get the effect by just skipping breakfast.

Fasting in mood disorders: neurobiology and effectiveness. A review of the literature

The only downside I've heard is speculation that eating 3 regularly scheduled meals helps entrain your circadian rhythm. If you're posting at 2:26am (PST), maybe yours is off a bit.

ihatetodietalways

Does fasting reduce resting metabolic rate?

wabmester

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

slimzandra

There is a discussion on reddit that has me confused.

Any thoughts about whether to drop cals./carbs. to your minimum macros out of the gate or start higher and when a weight plateau is reached then reduce?

Should one set their macros at your goal weight or at the current weight minus a reasonable deficit?


http://www.reddit.com/r/ketogains/comments/3d7dbl/what_do_you_guys_think_of_the_first_point_in_this/

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/5-reasons-youre-not-ripped.html

In particular:
"A common problem many dieters make is dropping calories and carbs too drastically right out of the gate. I get a lot of questions from people asking about going on a ketogenic (keto) diet—which is an extremely low-carb diet—to get ripped. Honestly, dropping all your carbs in one fell swoop is the last thing you want to do!

Yes, a drastic cut in your carbs can lead to a big drop in bodyweight, but that drop will be short-lived. The problem with dieting is that your body is constantly fighting to prevent too much fat loss; after all, fat is a great energy reserve if times get tough and food is no longer plentiful. While that may have been a problem for our ancestors, it's not a real issue for most of us today.

The "short lived" drop of weight he refers is water / glycogen weight. On keto, as we know, you still need a caloric deficit and to correctly track macros.

So no matter how low you drop carbs (and calories), your body will eventually adjust to your new caloric intake. If you've dropped most or all of your carbs, your body will adjust to that low-carb intake and you won't have room to cut further. Where do you go from there when you're no longer losing body fat?

Ok, he is using a blanket statement. You need to correctly set up your macros from the start. You will stall after a while, this is a known issue that happens in ANY diet whatsoever. Where do you go when you are not losing body fat? You review your diet, make sure you are tracking right, and do a one week calorie break.

wabmester

I don't think there's much science to support his view, especially with regard to how quickly you drop carbs.

The inevitable stall is mostly due to a lower metabolic rate due to your lost weight. As he says, it happens on all weight-loss diets. You need fewer calories as you lose weight, so you'll need to adjust intake downwards.

Psychologically, I like setting both my carb and calorie levels for the maintenance level I'll need for the future skinnier me. That way, maintenance becomes automatic.

wabmester

OK, here's one related to the last question. Everybody knows you lose water weight in the first week of a low-carb diet, right? Everybody says it's due to glycogen depletion. The liver can store about 120g of glycogen. Each gram of glycogen is associated with 3g of water, so that's less than 500g assuming total depletion (which doesn't happen, BTW).

That's like 1 lb! Yet everybody loses more than that. Where's all the water come from?

(Hint: it's mostly due to lost sodium!)

deksgrl

I have hunger but it is a different kind of hunger, and I can go longer without feeling hunger. First, I'll qualify it by saying I'm not at 20g or below. I range between 40-75g most days.

Before doing LCHF, I HAD to eat regularly or I would get hypoglycemic symptoms. If I went too long without eating, I would start feeling very irritable, dull, couldn't think straight, get weak, shakey, hot, cold, nauseous. Once in awhile I would become unable to function to even get something to eat. Never diagnosed with any sort of diabetes or pre-diabetes. My SO used to say I was like two different people. As soon as I ate, I would perk up and become like a real person again. Also, if I did not eat carbs with every meal, I would keep feeling hungry until I did eat some. Like if I just had bacon and eggs with no toast, I would be still starving after I ate.

Now, yes, I do get hungry if I go a long time without eating, but I don't get those symptoms any more, I can still function. The feeling in my stomach is not severe, and I get full without the high carbs I used to need.

slimzandra

Osmosis???

Tx wabester. ditto -"setting both my carb and calorie levels for the maintenance level I'll need for the future skinnier me." I was just wondering if the reason why I'm hitting a plateau after 85 days is because I started too low with cals/carbs. I don't think so and I will just wait it out for another week. Then I'll recalculate if nothing happens. It worked so far.

I do read articles that are written by a lay person with a grain of salt. (see, what I did there? LOL.)

nvmomketo

camtosh wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

I've got one. What is the neagtive aspects of being keto long term? I'm wondering about 10-20 years from now.... if I'm still doing it.

Check out Dr. Bernstein's blog and books -- he has been doing lchf since the early 1970s. He is type 1 diabetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_K._Bernstein#Biography

Thanks!

mlinton_mesapark

Yet another question: most, if not all of the study data I've read about comparing LCHF to other diets involved obese subjects. Do you know of studies specific to merely overweight folks?

Great thread, @wabmester!

wabmester

There's a good spreadsheet of several LC vs LF studies here:
http://smashthefat.com/science/

You can download the spreadsheet and search for "overweight" to see a few studies specifically looking at overweight subjects. If you have trouble, let me know, and I'll try to summarize them here.

This also reinforces the first study in this thread. LC subjects pretty consistently lose more weight than LF subjects, even at the same or higher calorie levels.

BTW, there is an interesting follow-up to the famous A-Z study. They sorted the subjects by insulin resistance. IIRC, LC and LF diets were pretty equally effective for the insulin sensitive, but LC was much more effective for insulin resistant subjects.

So insulin appears to be the key.