do ZERO carb in the beginning to reshape one's biochemical pathways
 

Was reading some old papers for another project and came upon this one which explains why some people doing low carb with 100 gram carb is ok and some people doing low carb with 20 gram carb is not ok.

My suggestion is to do ZERO carb in the beginning to reshape one's biochemical pathways.

Hepatic de novo lipogenesis in normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects consuming high-fat, low-carbohydrate and low-fat, high-carbohydrate isoenergetic diets

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/77/1/43/4689632

...
Fractional DNL
With the high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, DNL was minimal and did not differ significantly between the lean and obese subjects with normal fasting insulin concentrations. In contrast, hyperinsulinemic obese subjects had a significantly higher DNL compared with both lean and obese normoinsulinemic subjects (Figure 1; P < 0.05). Interestingly, although DNL did not differ significantly between the lean normoinsulinemic and the obese hyperinsulinemic subjects who consumed the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (Figure 1), DNL was significantly higher (P < 0.05) with the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet for both groups when compared with the normoinsulinemic subjects who consumed a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet for 5 d (Figure 1; P < 0.05).
...

Ima play devil's advocate. See why here:

It's a stretch to advise to eat zero-carb by starting with this piece of evidence because they just didn't test zero-carb or anywhere near. Also there's a threshold where we start to make significant amounts of ketones, that's about less than 130g/carbs/day. This is to say that the whole metabolic picture changes at that threshold. That experiment didn't come close to that number with the "low-carb" diet's total carb content of more than 300g/carbs/day. There's no telling what's gonna happen to the tendencies demonstrated in that experiment, when we cross that ketogenic threshold.

So ya, I'm playing devil's advocate, even though personally I think zero-carb should produce the greatest beneficial effect, because the evidence you present doesn't really support the advice. I mean, all I'm saying is find stronger evidence.

I’ve been having goid luck with fasting lately. A few years ago, it did not work that way. I was too sick.

Same person, same technique, different results.

Fasting is as Zero carb as one can get, albeit you have to be adapted before you should attempt it IMO

Very important advice. It takes time to adapt (up to 12 weeks for an early adapter), so LCHF in the beginning should be about consistency in your food consumption. Once you feel good on low carb, IF is a logical next step. Just because you can produce ketones or turn a keto stick a different color doesn't mean you're adapted.

I'd like to do zero carb, it's just difficult though.

Did not explained it in detail. Here is...

If one has problem to get into low carb with 20 gram carb, one might as well go with zero carb. Since almost everything contains carb, zero carb here just to tell you eat meat(still contains trace of carb.)

It was a suggestion or an opinion.

That paper was just to provide a possible explanation. It might or might not make sense to you.

Oh, I am intrigued about Zero Carb myself; I just need to set myself up for it when I am already juggling so many other things.

I'm chuckling about that cuz that's basically how I went about it when I went all-meat. Started Atkins, read about the carb ladder, then figured it makes no sense to add back carbs since removing the carbs is what gave me the best possible results on that carb ladder already. I mean, why would I want worse results, right? OK, I get it, if a bit less carbs is good, then a lot less carbs should be better, and no carbs should be best. Yeah, makes sense.

Logical reasoning. I just stayed in Induction, as adding more carbs made zero sense for the same reasons. I stay very low carb and am a fat burner, which works best for me. Zero carb? I'm not too far from it, and I can easily see how it works well for people.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the part about "in the beginning". So, we're talking about something like Atkins induction, but instead of 20g/carbs/day/2 weeks it's just zero for 2 weeks, right? Well then it's real simple, find solid evidence for the Atkins diet especially the induction phase, use that to support the advice to do zero-carb for induction instead. Thing is 20g is much closer to zero than 300g. Ima say use the A-TO-Z experiment where they compared the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and some other diet.

Paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...larticle/205916
Discussion: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=402590
Lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

I'm not sure how to fit this idea of reshaping one's biochemical pathways, but it's a start though. Add the one you posted, add others you find, at some point you'll figure out some way to make that idea fit.

23 more studies: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=456041

If one can do low carb without problems, keep doing it.

"hyperinsulinemic obese subjects had a significantly higher DNL"

Since DNL requires Carb, I suggest "Zero Carb" to stop DNL.

Since eat meat is easier than counting carb, hence zero carb.

Liver has carbs (9/6oz) eggs have carbs 0.8 for two whole. So "Zero carbs" is an near approximation. Oddly some people lose better when increasing carbs somewhat ie. CALP or Southbeach.
Some claim mixing things up a bit can prevent a stall.

"Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate" -- university biochemistry classhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129159/

Clearly, the AHA had it wrong, dead wrong.

Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate or various glucogenic amino acids. The amino acids don't actually have to be made into glucose in the process. It's like saying you need sticks to make a roof, you can make a roof of sticks, you don't have to.