Yeah, the contention isn't that dietary fat causes insulin resistance. His low-fat period leading in to the high carb/low fat period did nothing to prepare his body for the low-fat diet. That was just a switch from burning dietary fat to burning body fat. No surprise that he was hungrier, but you wouldn't expect much of an adaptation. And if there was one, it would have been in the wrong direction--his body adapting to increased lipolysis from fat cells for energy. At least some dietary fat prior to the carbohydrate experiment would have given his body some practice at clearing fats from the blood.

Don't know how I forgot this, but I was reading some Himsworth study the other day (not this one) and saw the same observation. Taubes credits Himsworth as first making the distinction between type I and type II diabetics, I think this is the observation that that was based on.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...d00480-0099.pdf

Although this doesn't really differentiate between type I and type II--it just differentiates between diabetics that improve in insulin sensitivity with a higher carb diet, and those that don't. Probably most type I diabetics would fit in the "improves" group. The type II's could be a split group--maybe depending on how their free fatty acid levels responded to the increase in carbohydrate.

It might depend on whether the adipose or liver becomes insulin resistant first. If the adipose is more insulin resistant than the liver, a vlc diet may work better as gluconeogenesis will be lowered before lypolisis is inhibited. If the liver is more insulin resistant than the adipose, a vlf diet may work as lipolysis is inhibited before gluconeogenesis.

Edit: Trying to find something I'd read about a gene responsible for a reduced insulin response to a glucose load in type 2s who are insulin sensitive.

Unfortunate that Cooksey got freaked out about the high postprandial blood sugars. I think it is likely that his body would have adapted better after a few more days. But a good lesson for those who want to "carb up" once in a while, after being LCHF. Keep an eye on blood sugars, consistency in any diet seems to work better for most.

Yes.
The phenomenon of a 3-7 day Keto-adaption period at the start of a low-carb diet is now part of the standard lore of the low-carb approach. This is usually explained as being due to the need to tool-up the enzymes required for the high fat metabolic pathways.

It would be reasonable to test for the possibility of a similar delay in re-tooling from HFLC to LFHC.

Knowing if such an adaption period exists and how long it took would be an essential part of designing a cyclical or occasional LFHC interval into a HFLC lifestyle.

Also, Minger, (and McDougall etc.) emphasise that the VLF is an essential part of the LFHC diet she is discussing. What would also be essential to know is how Low Fat that needs to be. Is it 5% or 15%. or is it an absolute amount per KG body weight? A tablespoon (25g?).

Well, as an intervention and not as a lifelong WOE forever, every LFHC diet I've seen says as low-fat as possible, no-fat, if possible. Certainly the PH and low-fat portion of HCG, as well as other low-fat diets, call for no added fat of any kind, or at least separated by 4-6 hours if some is added.

On PH, I have about 10 g of fat for breakfast in my morning coffee, and no-fat the rest of the day.

In a way, it's bemusing how people worry about not getting enough fat when their own body is generating plenty from breaking down internal fat. So, in a sense, a low-fat diet does get plenty of fat, just not dietary.

The problems arise when a LEAN person attempts LF, with little to no reserves; same as with fasting.

I have to admit, I'm very uncomfortable with the concept of these LCHF diets as an "intervention", and also the various hacks. I think that comes primarily from three points:

--Part of what is happening as I continue on the LCHF diet is that I am learning (figuring out) how to eat to maintain my weight, be satisfied, and hopefully not really think about dieting at some point. Someday it should be relatively effortless, with the habits I'm nailing down. Intermittent fasting is one of those and integrates very well for me. These unusual, non-sustainable diets don't do that, I'm not learning anything if I'm on a diet like that.

--I'm concerned about effects on the metabolism, hormones, BG etc.. some of which may not be measurable. I see the potential to get things really AFU when cycling on and off these unusual diets and not being adapted to the changes.

--The more we stray away from a varied diet, the more potential for deficiencies to develop. Some of these deficiencies may not be recognized or even measurable at this time--essential nutrients are still being discovered. I'd like to believe my body has some inate sense of what it needs, and there's a reason I would get tired quickly of an all (fill in the blank) diet.

But I did not get results like that: I would lower my fat, but my bodyfat would stay the same, and my mind would plague me with DEMANDS for more food. NOW. I would eat things like rice cakes, very low fat and high carb, and that would just make the problem worse.

I didn't lose weight. Giving my body a stream of low fat carbohydrates just made me crazy.

So I would fall into that percentage of people for whom the Rice Diet did not work.

What happened to them?

Besides Kempner getting out his whip? I think it's like fasting, you either experience the decrease in appetite or they don't.

Another factor is, just how low is the calorie intake? The latest comment on Denise's blog is by a guy named Frank Wells;




400 to 800 calories is getting into modified fasting territory. Some people will experience a drop in hunger at this level, some people won't.

Short of drastic intervention for fatal disease

That just looks like kimkims to me

Right along with the cinnamon toothpick diet

PJ

Right!

So was it the drastically low fat, or was it the near-starvation/fasting? We started out discussing a VLF diet, but if one is restricted to 400-800 calories (yikes!) could we get better results on 400-800 calories of pure fat?

Not for long... that's nearly Atkin's fat fast, which I tried for eight days... by the end I quit because I felt sick and extremely weird, probably why Atkins advised against staying on it more than 3-4 days. Then again, strong ketosis does that to me. But you may be different... why not try it and see for yourself, as I did, the only way to know if something works for you, rather than conjecturing.

I'd FAR rather do 750-900 cals of no-fat, totally satiating potatoes for weeks than do a fat fast more than 3 days again. Actually, my favorite weight-loss hack is PH for five days, LC for the weekends.


Here's a 3-week progress report of my 2013 PH. I was doing heavy-duty gardening/farm work those weeks, with plenty of energy to burn; interestingly enough (though not mentioned below), my FBS rose after my LC days:

Why would I want to torture myself on a 100% fat diet for those same weeks?

I don't think everybody would find the fat fast to be torture, though. (edited to add--I know you're not saying that everybody does).
When it comes down to it, there are various "satiety" hormones that seem to be more responsive to carbohydrate, protein or fat intake. Protein is the nutrient most universally recognized as satiating by the main stream--but some people tolerate a protein sparing modified fast very well, and some people tolerate it poorly.

Something like the potato hack or rice diet, when at low calorie could be considered just one more type of fast, like the fat fast or a psmf. All of these obviously work for somebody, they don't all have to work for exactly the same reason--and that might be the beauty of the thing, just because one doesn't work for somebody, that doesn't mean the others won't.

Oh, I understand, but your chart shows a calorie intake that is entirely in line with farm work and lots of energy!

No one gets that on Rice Diet. Just wondering if the 400-800 calories is the key to its health transformations, not the stream of pure carbs the people were trying to survive on. Calling it a Very Low Fat diet is kinda misleading, in that case.

I was on a 600 calorie per day medically supervised fast. All was well - until I started eating food again. My body screamed for sweet FAT!! I would have eaten Crisco with sugar sprinkled on it my body's drive was so bad. Thankfully, that drive went away after a few weeks and many, many pounds.

Do the great results of LFHC last? We know there are essential fats and proteins in the long run, but no essential carbs.