You just described me to a "T."

The Art and Scienceof Low Carbohydrate Living- Dr. Phinney and Dr. Volek. This book completely changed my perspective on clinical nutrition, forced me to re-read earlier studies on fat- heart hypothesis. It made me reconsider the Atkins- low carb approach, and realize that protein excess was essentially a "moderate carb" diet through conversion of protein to sugar.

I conducted a giant experiment on myself, taking a hypertensive, hyperlipidemic, mildly overweight individual and began eating 70% fat, every day. (olive oil, butter, etc. with daily cholesterol intake nearly 7x what was "recommended). I put butter on bacon as an example!

The result: within 90 days off all blood pressure medicine, cholesterol medicine, 15lbs weight off despite eating 2500kcal daily, less exercise than normal. I don't count calories, and eat when hungry. I ate 3500 kcal two days ago.

It has changed my life, and I have started incorporating this education into clinical practice (where appropriate) for patients with T2DM and insulin resistance.

mpantsari wrote: »

The issue I continue to have is crampy- twitchy muscles. I have supplemented MgO, fairly regularly, but 75 days in still have issues as the day goes on.

Advice?

Make sure you're getting sufficient sodium and potassium, too. All the magnesium in the world won't matter if your sodium and/or potassium are running low. As I recall, Magnesium citrate is the superior one for bioavailbility of supplements, so it might be worth switching to that, too.

wabmester wrote: »

I may regret asking this, but tell me your thoughts about eating high fat. What do you feel the HF aspect of LCHF does? Is it possible to eat too much fat? Is there good fat and bad fat?

I know some of you were trained on the old fat-is-evil mindset and then you changed your mind. What convinced you to change your mind? Was it something you read, data and/or logic, how you felt, or the results you observed in terms of weight loss or other health markers?

(My responses and point of view, based on the research I've done. Just putting that out there.)

The fat part of LCHF provides energy. Protein is not considered energy, as its primary purpose is building blocks (cell repair, muscle retention, etc). That leaves fat and carbohydrates for energy. As one goes down, the other has to go up. So, I, for example, consume 1,600-2,000 calories a day (1900-2000 or so is what all the calculators say is what's necessary to lose 1lb/week while sedentary). 400-560 calories or so of that is protein (about 100-140g for me). The rest has to come from carbs and/or fat. I'm currently doing carnivore, so my carb intake is 1-10g most days, or 4-40 calories. That leaves the remaining 1,100-1,500 calories coming from fat.

The only bad fats are artificial trans fats and oxidized fats. This would include anything hydrogenated and industrial seed oils and other oils (particularly high polyunsaturated fat oils) that are extracted via high heat and/or chemical processes, which damage the fatty acids. Saturated fat not only isn't bad, but should be roughly half of your fat intake, with monounsaturated fats following closely at 40-50% as well, and polyunsaturated fats making up 5-10% of fat intake. Ideally, polyunsaturated fat content should have 1:1 or 2:1 Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratios. These numbers are based on the fatty acid distribution of human fat. Regardless of diet, human fat is 40-50% saturated fat, 40-50% monounsaturated fat, and 5-10% polyunsaturated fat, with a 1:1 or 2:1 O6-O3 ratio. This means things like butter, lard, tallow, olive oil, and coconut oil are among the staple added fats.

It's technically possible to eat too much fat, but largely only in the sense of sheer numbers of calories (ie - as long as your protein remains sufficient to spare lean mass, it's not really possible to have too high a percentage of fat if calories are held constant). However, the vast majority of people find it difficult to overeat when carbs are kept down (one of the problems with SAD is that it's high carb and high fat, which doesn't mix well).

Fat also takes over the role most people attribute to fiber. I'm not sure there's been any formal studies on this, but the hypothesis is that fat acts as the lubricant for fecal matter, keeping things regular. Additionally, it's known that too much protein in the absence (or near-absence) of fat and/or carbs, creates a low-level state of "rabbit starvation" or protein toxicity, which is recognizable by GI disruptions -- constipation at first, and diarrhea if it's allowed to progress.

Fat's satiating in a way that's different from how protein or fiber are satiating. Instead of a signal that sort of says "I'm full," fat gives you a feeling of "I no longer have interest in eating." It's a subtle, but distinct difference.

I was sort of trained on the "fat-is-evil" mindset, in that my mother taught me to pay attention to the "calories from fat" and that I should seek to minimize that number. However, my grandparents were bacon-and-eggs type people and we had our fair share of BLTs and mayo growing up, so the "training" wasn't quite as strong as what others I know grew up with. Regardless, by the time I found LCHF, I already knew through years of experience that USDA style and "low fat" ways of eating weren't cutting it for me. I was always fighting hunger and cravings and wasn't getting anywhere by any health marker I had. Desperation led me first to try the Primal Blueprint, then further down the LCHF rabbit hole as I found successes the more I tweaked my intake.

Results -- or lack thereof -- have trumped all the old programming, and in efforts to find the root cause of the problem, I found a bunch of research on the ketogenic diet and similar HFLC frameworks, how insulin contributes to such issues as metabolic syndrome and PCOS, and various other things that conventional wisdom would most likely consider "fringe." As Einstein put it -- insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. If USDA and MFP's basic guidelines were failing me miserably, then I need to try something different. I had problems with anemia at the time, so I had ruled out vegetarianism on that basis, so I went the Paleo direction (specifically, Primal Blueprint). I gave it a try and found some other health changes (immediate reduction in headaches/migraines, immediate reduction in heartburn, less bloating, etc). I found success in the basic PB method, but found myself still dealing with cravings and still not getting anywhere in the weight department. So, I proceeded to lower my carb goal, which increased fat (since protein and calories were held constant). The more I did that, the less I dealt with hunger and cravings, which made my calorie goal doable where it wasn't before, and made the prospect of trying to reduce calories further if needed to be far less daunting and impossible than it was when I was following the high carb/USDA approach.

Wab, are you looking at LCHF, or ketogenic? Not that the latter isn't a variation of the former...I was just curious.

For myself, I feel the HF aspect of LCFH helps with numerous aspects. It keeps me satisfied. It is good for my hair, and my nails, and my skin. By keeping me satisfied, it helps me keep my carbohydrate count down. Since I'm diabetic, thats a big one. I still struggle with glucose numbers...but I'm still working on that....I'm hoping to improve my insulin sensitivity.

Phinney and Volek were good reading for me. So was Lyle McDonald. You have to take a lot of what he says (and 99% of his pompous attitude) with a grain of salt, but he has some good solid research there...in my opinion.

I have autoimmune disorders that I deal with, and LCHF has been key to reducing inflammation and flare-ups from these disorders, one of which involves histamine. Omega 6 fats cause high histamine responses. As do flax and most seed based oils.... Offal also causes a high histamine responses...even though its great for you....its just not great for me. So, this journey, has literally changed my quality of life. I've screwed it up a lot along the way, but all in all, its been great.

Can you eat too much fat? I think the answer to this is primarily dependent upon WHY you have chosen this WOE. If you have chosen it to lose weight, then yes...I think you can eat too much fat...but you can also eat too much protein and too many carbohydrates, or any combination of those....you can eat too many calories period.... Its all relative and individualistic. In my opinion, the most important part of the journey is getting in touch with yourself and your body. understanding how it operates, and what makes it work smoothly and efficiently - and most important - healthfully.


..."My impression is that high fat = high ketones, and I wonder how significant the high ketone level is for weight loss. Sufficient ketones appear to be necessary to reduce insulin and hunger, but has "sufficient" been defined?"...

I'm not sure that there is necessarily a 1:1 correlation here, but there might be. I'm sure that some of the smart people here can talk to it better...but, with regard to glucose and insulin, my understanding is that in order to inhibit fat storage (which is NOT the same as weight loss right?), you really need to keep your glucose 120 and under. I still struggle with that. I test blood ketones multiple times a day, to better learn about my body's responses. Higher ketone readings don't necessarily equate to higher fat loss / weight loss. If your caloric requirement is 2500 calories a day, and you eat 2500 calories a day, and 85% of that diet is coming from fat...I'm going to bet that the majority of your ketone production is from dietary fat. If, on the other hand your caloric requirement is 2500 calories, and you restrict your calorie intake to 1600, and 70-75% of your calories are coming from fat...THEN, I'd be willing to be that your body is utilizing some of its own fat stores to produce the energy required to meet that daily caloric requirement.

I eat ketogenic at 20g or less net carb. If I can improve my insulin sensitivity, learn more about my own different food triggers, and move more toward my goal weight, I am happy. I hope to be able to eventually increase my carb count to between 60-75net. ...more paleo/primal, so I can include more veg.

For myslef, I also found, that I could not consistently get my ketones up beyond trace levels until my glucose levels came down. I could not get my glucose levels down consistently, until I incorporated IF. Weirdness, I know...but I think I have a lot of damage and healing going on. That, and I'm kind of a freak of nature.

Whether you believe high fat is about filling out calories or ketone generation, shouldn't that fat source eventually switch to your adipose stores?

As long as you're taking in fewer calories than you burn, your body will burn body fat. Being fat adapted, or metabolically flexible, allows your body to easily switch to the fat stores, provided you don't have underlying metabolic issues (and even then, it eventually resolves).

I believe that "fat-adapted" means that your body has produced the enzymes required to consistently burn fat as fuel...to include having that switch factor that dragon referenced...the ability to switch between burning dietary fat or ones own body fat as fuel - as required. As such, I also think that...as we've all touched on, if you burn more than you take in...from a calorie perspective, your body will (in this state) burn its own fat stores. So, yes, in order to promote burning your own fat stores, it only makes sense, if you need to reduce calories, and you are following a LCHF WOE, that you would lower your fat intake, as your carbs will already be low, and protein you will want to keep as your constant.

Let me know when you figure out that whole mitochondrial biogenesis thing.

wabmester wrote: »

I may regret asking this, but tell me your thoughts about eating high fat. What do you feel the HF aspect of LCHF does? Is it possible to eat too much fat? Is there good fat and bad fat?


While everyone above has given great scientific based answers, my real world, lay person answer is
LCHF = Less pressure. I can go out and live my life. It is annoying going out to eat with a "low fat dieter". By eating LCHF, I can eat at 99% of the places I walk into. Just hold the bun, potatos, rice. Pizza? excellent, order "the works" and I'll eat all the toppings.
Plus I'm Italian. If you give me a choice between pasta and olive oil ... I'm keeping my oil. There isn't a veggie in the world that can't be made better with olive oil or fried up with some pancetta.

mpantsari wrote: »

The issue I continue to have is crampy- twitchy muscles. I have supplemented MgO, fairly regularly, but 75 days in still have issues as the day goes on.

Advice?

I've read that MgO is the least absorbed. I use a "super magnesium" from GNC that is magnesium citrate, lactate and aspartate.

Journey_258_thru wrote: »

nill4me wrote: »

I believe that "fat-adapted" means that your body has produced the enzymes required to consistently burn fat as fuel...to include having that switch factor that dragon referenced...the ability to switch between burning dietary fat or ones own body fat as fuel - as required. As such, I also think that...as we've all touched on, if you burn more than you take in...from a calorie perspective, your body will (in this state) burn its own fat stores. So, yes, in order to promote burning your own fat stores, it only makes sense, if you need to reduce calories, and you are following a LCHF WOE, that you would lower your fat intake, as your carbs will already be low, and protein you will want to keep as your constant.

Let me know when you figure out that whole mitochondrial biogenesis thing.

@nill4me what is WOE? I'm 5 days into keto, so the acronyms are quite newish....

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10081444/glossary-of-terms-abbreviations-and-acronyms

wabmester wrote: »

nill4me wrote: »

Let me know when you figure out that whole mitochondrial biogenesis thing.

To me, that's the interesting answer for the meaning of "fat adapted." When your heart rate is below 130 or so, your muscles already burn fat. Anybody who considers themselves "sedentary" is already fat adapted!

The "switch" you guys are talking about is the change in fuel partitioning at higher exertion levels. Instead of burning sugar anaerobically, your muscles start burning fat (and ketones) at heart rates > 130. That apparently requires new mitochondria equipped with new enzymes, and that's what I'd like to experience. In theory, that requires more than just LCHF. It needs to be coupled with high-intensity exercise.

Yes, "fat adaptation" or metabolic flexibility is the state humans should be in (and, you're right, it includes being able to burn fat into the higher heart rates), but I don't think it's the state that most people in First World countries and the Western/SAD diet actually are in. If they were, we wouldn't be constantly hearing how people can't go more than 2 or 3 hours without eating and dealing with hypoglycemia, metabolic disorders, etc., which are indicative of elevated dependence on sugar and impaired ability to oxidize fat. After all, if you don't use it, you lose it, and when you're overflowing your body with sugars and starches, especially refined ones, even if you're eating fat, you're not actually burning the fat, because you're perpetually dealing with sugar.

It's not necessarily just about it at higher exertions. When you have your metabolic flexibility, you can eat something that's really sugary or starchy, and once that's burned off, go right back to the fat-burning state you in before, and maybe not eat again for another 5 or 6 hours. When you lose your metabolic flexibility, you're hungry again 2 or 3 hours later, because you've burned through all the starch and sugar.

Now, the ability to burn fat never completely goes away, but the worse the metabolic condition, the less of it they have. This, I think, is one of the big reasons there's this divide between those who can lose all their weight just by counting and reducing calories, and those who have to eliminate the sugars and starches (and maybe even go as far as eliminating nearly all sources of carbohydrates). The ones that just needed to watch their intake still had most, if not all, of their metabolic flexibility intact, while those of us with things like hyperinsulinemia, hypoglycemia, Diabetes, PCOS, etc., have impaired systems that we need to repair and rebuild.

Mark Sisson goes into more detail on this (complete with a bunch of cool studies/papers on the matter):
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted-part-2-qa

Reading Taubes, Phinney and Volek as well as the experiential evidence on this forum did it for me. Add a heaping helping of desperation and it was a no-brainer for me to try LCHF. I lost weight the first month (March) but not really since then.

nill4me wrote: »

Let me know when you figure out that whole mitochondrial biogenesis thing.

PQQ or Pyrroloquinoline Quinone is one of several supplements that claims to promote mitochondrial biogenesis that you may have read about.

Niagen is a synthetic vitamin B3 that is getting a lot of attention today when it comes to mitochondrial count.

I started to take both about the same time so I do not know if they played a role in my improvement since I take others as well and have been pure LCHF for 8 months now.

Most likely it is due to recovery of general health due to LCHF way of eating.

I too find all of the anti aging research interesting and expect it will be years before we see and real research proving or disproving related products.

wabmester wrote: »

So you need that initial dietary fat to get the ball rolling, but why would you need to keep up the same levels once your adipose fat is available and insulin is lower? It is possible that your hunger signals will still come from how much food is processed by your gut, and that may require a continued higher calorie level to quench, but that's one of the reasons I asked the question.

Regardless of macronutrient ratios, the body still needs sufficient dietary fuel to keep from "thinking" that you're in the middle of a famine. It's been shown (Dr. Jason Fung talks about this in his talks) that prolonged calorie restriction lowers metabolic rate, and this reduction takes quite some time to reverse. So, again, if you treat them as their primary purpose, then protein is not a fuel source (you can think of it like the oil in a car -- it's required to run, but isn't burned as fuel). If you're restricting carbohydrates, then that leaves fat as your fuel source. Those of us who are LCHF, but not specifically seeking ketosis, may also eat some more protein as a result of getting more fat (ie - I normally eat about 100-120g of protein, but on my higher calorie days, it's not uncommon to get more like 140g of protein), but protein is not the primary goal when increasing caloric intake.

Dr. Fung also talks about the metabolic differences between caloric restriction and fasting, and a fast-feast cycle doesn't seem to have the same metabolic effects (probably because the "restriction" comes from the fasting times, and then you eat a sufficient amount during the "feasting" times, but he goes into more details on this). This, of course, suggests that there's more to metabolism and metabolic issues than just insulin, leptin, and ghrelin.

Do you guys need to continue to eat high fat to keep your hunger in check, or do you maintain the same macros and calorie levels because you want to stay compliant with the "program?"

Kinda, sorta, not really. It's habit for me, now, so it's not really about staying "compliant" (except for keeping carbs down). My hunger is largely already "in check." These days, even in my higher calorie days, I don't go beyond about 2500 calories, and I still have more days where I'm more like 1500 calories, which results in a weekly caloric deficit of right about 3500 calories (1lb/week).

Besides, a skin-on chicken thigh tastes far better than a skinless chicken breast.