Yes, I think the fewer carbs you eat, the less you will crave them. Every body finds its own tolerance level for carbs, so ymmv. Which in turn means you will eat more fat and protein, and this will be enough to satisfy you. Your weight loss speed will depend on many factors, one being the deficit between calories in and your TDEE (usual amount of calories burned each day). Many people do low carb for weight loss at first, but later on it is to keep feeling healthy! and not gain back what was lost... I lost my 10 kg on a 50 -100 daily carb intake, mostly losing in spurts into the lower range and maintaining when in the higher, I think.

gsp90x wrote: »

don't stress too much, apparently as long as you eat under 100g, you "could" stay in ketosis

That's going to be super subjective though, and you'd only *really* know if you were in deep ketosis and well adapted for a while, then slowly upped your carbs while doing blood ketone tests to find the level at which you leave exit the ketotic state.

I guess the first consideration for me is that the body needs glucose. Not a lot, but not zero. The brain can run on some ketones, but not just ketones. I estimated that our minimal need is about 40g of glucose per day, but I don't know if that has been measured scientifically.

So we have 4 levels of carbs we can talk about:

1) Excess carbs. Anything over 150g/d or so can't be fully utilized (if you're sedentary), so the excess gets stored as fat. We all agree this isn't good. Even worse is when you're in a chronic state of excess CALORIES as well as excess carbs. That's probably the main cause of our metabolic problems.

2) Just enough carbs. Around 150g/d. This is healthy, especially combined with a calorie deficit. A lot of people can lose weight on this level of carbs.

3) Too few carbs to meet all of your metabolic needs. Under 150g or so. This will eventually reduce your glycogen stores and you'll start making ketones. The brain will use up to 80g of those ketones. The rest will be excreted in urine until your muscles are "keto-adapted." All of your consumed carbs will also be used by the brain.

4) Way too few carbs. Below 40g/d. This will force the body to make glucose via gluconeogenesis. This appears to be associated with an increase in cortisol (stress hormone).

In terms of weight loss, any level below 150g can work. It'll shift your focus to protein and other high-satiety sources, and it'll shift you away from junk carbs.

To me, the level below 40g/d is potentially a danger zone because of the stress response. It was intended only for weight loss "induction." I don't know how it morphed into a long-term target.

Above 120-150g is also a danger zone for obvious reasons of over-consumption, junk food, cravings, etc.

The sweet spot is somewhere between 40g-120g/d. At that level, for me it becomes a question of the quality of your carb intake rather than the quantity. Avoid triggers that cause cravings and you should be fine.

Everybody says "find your own level," but if you're eating, say, broccoli at 40g/d vs more broccoli at 80g/d, does it really make a difference to your diet success? It's what you eat that matters more than the quantity when we're talking about that small level of carb intake.

The "teasing" is the problem, not the level. Even at my relatively high levels, I had zero pasta, zero rice (except for sushi!), zero bread, zero baked goods, etc. I had no cravings from the veggies, berries, or nuts. Not even the chocolate.

wabmester wrote: »

wabmester wrote: »

I estimated that our minimal need is about 40g of glucose per day, but I don't know if that has been measured scientifically.

I'm sure I'm the only one interested in this, but it has been measured, and I found it tonight. They measured how much glucose we make after over a month of starvation: 33g (I was close!). 14g of that was made from protein, and 19g from glycerol. Apparently, it's mostly from protein in the early stages.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292907/pdf/jcinvest00272-0077.pdf

Doesn't that just mean you don't need carbs to produce the glucose the brain needs?

we talking net or total carbs?

I, personally had never heard of insulin resistance, until joining this group, and I'm a registered nurse. Though I believe I was headed down that road, as my a1c was above 5. Not 100% sure without an actual diagnosis. I began lc at 100g or less and found, pretty quickly, that I felt better the lower I went. I have settled at twenty where I seem to feel best, and don't have any cravings. I have some other health issues, Fibromyalgia being one, and I have seen an improvement (not gone, but better) there. Still have pain if I overdo the activity, but I'm recovering from it quicker. This has been a very welcome side effect of LCHF, for me.

totaloblivia wrote: »

wabmester wrote: »

wabmester wrote: »

I estimated that our minimal need is about 40g of glucose per day, but I don't know if that has been measured scientifically.

I'm sure I'm the only one interested in this, but it has been measured, and I found it tonight. They measured how much glucose we make after over a month of starvation: 33g (I was close!). 14g of that was made from protein, and 19g from glycerol. Apparently, it's mostly from protein in the early stages.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292907/pdf/jcinvest00272-0077.pdf

Doesn't that just mean you don't need carbs to produce the glucose the brain needs?

That's one way to look at it.

It also means that your body will fight like hell to get the glucose it needs. When you restrict carbs too much, the body thinks it's starving. It needs to use hormones to signal the organs to switch to "all hands on deck -- make me some glucose!" mode. It appears to use cortisol, the stress hormone, for this signalling. That sort of makes sense if you think about it -- you also need extra glucose for the fight or flight response.

And THAT was my point about consuming enough carbs so that it doesn't have to stress out about the lack of glucose.

I could be wrong, though. There was some indication that the body gives up on getting any glucose from the liver, and it switches to the kidneys for the emergency glucose. I need to read more on the subject.

http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html

One recent myth, prevalent in the Paleo Diet community, is that the keto diet is stressful to the body ¹. This idea arises from misunderstandings about cortisol — “the stress hormone”. There are two different arguments we know of, and this post will address the first one, the “gluconeogenesis requires cortisol” myth.

gsp90x wrote: »

@FIT_goat did you mean to post this in the "does counting calories" thread??

Nope, it's in response to the posts by @wabmester concerning cortisol and glucose needs for people consuming less than 40 g/day.

Posts such as:

Way too few carbs. Below 40g/d. This will force the body to make glucose via gluconeogenesis. This appears to be associated with an increase in cortisol (stress hormone).
[. . .]
To me, the level below 40g/d is potentially a danger zone because of the stress response. It was intended only for weight loss "induction." I don't know how it morphed into a long-term target.

It also means that your body will fight like hell to get the glucose it needs. When you restrict carbs too much, the body thinks it's starving. It needs to use hormones to signal the organs to switch to "all hands on deck -- make me some glucose!" mode. It appears to use cortisol, the stress hormone, for this signalling. That sort of makes sense if you think about it -- you also need extra glucose for the fight or flight response.

And THAT was my point about consuming enough carbs so that it doesn't have to stress out about the lack of glucose.

I could be wrong, though. There was some indication that the body gives up on getting any glucose from the liver, and it switches to the kidneys for the emergency glucose. I need to read more on the subject.