Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Dr.Bernstein & Diabetes
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Fri, Mar-25-16, 09:14
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,086
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Thanks, Thud! Mosley is doing some good work. Will consider his latest book. The dynamic emerging here is the formation of a community of doctors, scientists, authors, and other experts who are providing solid information (Finally!) to the public. It's starting to become more accessible and readily available, and once the mainstream media starts trumpeting this like it's the new wave, it becomes more widely distributed. That's a good thing. People like Fung, Mosley, Taubes, Moore, Attia, Teicholz, Volek, Phinney, O'Neill, Noakes, and many others help lend credibility and shine a spotlight on this way of thinking. Why is this important despite the lagging medical and scientific communities? It will save lives one at a time until it becomes mainstream knowledge. Remember, we still laugh at the Flat Earth Society. People who believed otherwise at one time we not happy campers!!!!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 10:32
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,124
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://aeon.co/essays/hunger-is-ps...-makes-it-worse

Jimmy Moore interviewed this fellow recently after he wrote this blogpost on losing weight. Pretty low-carb friendly. This bit leaps out at me;
Quote:
One recent study found that most of the calories people eat come through snacks between meals.


The study itself is behind a paywall, but the abstract describes positive results from an intervention involving a 10-11 hour feeding window.

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...Fshowall%3Dtrue
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 10:49
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,961
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

This article is going a bit off-topic from fasting but since it discusses insulin resistance and sensitivity, I wonder what the folks on this thread think of Chris Gardner follow-on research to his earlier studies LF vs LC. The study results indicate there wasn't much difference, but Bill Lagokos sees something else, that also relates back to Woo's criticism of JM/Fung...he is really NOT insulin resistant but very insulin sensitive now. Net down, Bill thinks that after losing on LC, to finish consider switching to HCLF.

http://caloriesproper.com/chris-gardner-strikes-again/
(many graphs/charts, couldn't really copy)

Quote:
Are there a million other factors involved here? YES. Insulin sensitivity is only one of ’em, but a pretty good starting point.

Theoretical scenario: a sedentary, obese insulin resistant patient starts off on LC and is initially successful. They start exercising and focusing on sleep quality, insulin sensitivity improves (ie, new #context)... but weight loss stalls in many of these people. Maybe at this point they would benefit more by switching the focus from strict LC to monitoring other things, like calorie or fat intake (ie, to match the new #context) –> progress resumes.
Maybe.


Don’t be tied down to one approach; different #contexts require different approaches, and both can change over time.


That’s all, for now.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 13:29
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,473
 
Plan: ~25NC/IF
Stats: 342.2/208/000 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 39%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
https://aeon.co/essays/hunger-is-ps...-makes-it-worse

Jimmy Moore interviewed this fellow recently after he wrote this blogpost on losing weight. Pretty low-carb friendly. This bit leaps out at me;


The study itself is behind a paywall, but the abstract describes positive results from an intervention involving a 10-11 hour feeding window.

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...Fshowall%3Dtrue

Thanks teaser! I can really relate to the article and I think fasting helps me discover some aspects of this for myself...

"My message is this: your weight is in large measure about your psychology"

Spending some time, while not eating, with these thoughts/impulses - things appearing to arise without being summoned and disappearing on their own accord - has been helpful in illuminating them for what they are.

I also like his lazy approach. It matches mine. There is no struggle. Grip anything to tightly and you'll either get tired or it will slip thru your fingers. However, it's very easy to like something you tend to agree with

I realize that I may be in the minority with this opinion but this has been my experience with many things, not just trying to control the intake of food or the weight of my body.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 15:06
Kinmount's Avatar
Kinmount Kinmount is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 505
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 205/181.8/145 Female 5 ft 4 in
BF:
Progress: 39%
Location: Southern Ontario
Default

I hope I'm not crashing your thread by posting my IF questions here where you are discussing the new book, but I couldn't see any other logical place to post this. If you need to move this, then please do so.

In one of Dr. Fung's blog post he talked about the difference between low fat/calorie diets over sustained periods of time, and LCHF/IF, and that the low fat/calorie diet did slow down metabolism and caused weight gain.

I'm trying to understand what the non-fasting porting of LCHF/IF looks like.

1. If one is eating just 1 or 2 meals a day and fasting 18:6 or 20:4 , does it matter how many calories one eats for their non-fast meals?
2. If calories for 1 or 2 meals are between 600-800 is that a problem metabolically when one is doing LCHF/IF. More specifically does it have the same metabolic affect as low fat/calories diets alone over sustained periods (slowed metabolism)?


I haven't seen anything in the tons of Dr. Fung blog posts, videos, and LowCArbDownUnder videos that answer that, unless I missed it. I downloaded and read all the PDFs links that Jey posted for the archive of the blog and didn't see the answer in the guidelines or FAQ.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 15:37
Ohamy Ohamy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 270
 
Plan: ketogenic
Stats: 298/149/140 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 94%
Default

https://aeon.co/essays/hunger-is-ps...-makes-it-worse
"The Hunger Mood" is genious. Calorie counting never worked for me. If I'm focused on calories I'm focused on food and I wanna eat. Same with the daily scale number--too many variables to pretend it's a measure of my daily progress. It is all about DON'T POKE THE TIGER. Which for me is remaining in ketosis. I can meander peacefully and intuitively around food while in ketosis. If my hunger mood is aroused with cheese or a handful of nuts, it is a FIGHT with that tiger.
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 19:17
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,124
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinmount
I hope I'm not crashing your thread by posting my IF questions here where you are discussing the new book, but I couldn't see any other logical place to post this. If you need to move this, then please do so.

In one of Dr. Fung's blog post he talked about the difference between low fat/calorie diets over sustained periods of time, and LCHF/IF, and that the low fat/calorie diet did slow down metabolism and caused weight gain.

I'm trying to understand what the non-fasting porting of LCHF/IF looks like.

1. If one is eating just 1 or 2 meals a day and fasting 18:6 or 20:4 , does it matter how many calories one eats for their non-fast meals?
2. If calories for 1 or 2 meals are between 600-800 is that a problem metabolically when one is doing LCHF/IF. More specifically does it have the same metabolic affect as low fat/calories diets alone over sustained periods (slowed metabolism)?


I haven't seen anything in the tons of Dr. Fung blog posts, videos, and LowCArbDownUnder videos that answer that, unless I missed it. I downloaded and read all the PDFs links that Jey posted for the archive of the blog and didn't see the answer in the guidelines or FAQ.


This is a carry-on thread from a thread on all things Fung and diabetes, we just went with this name because his book came out. We have another thread specifically for intermittent fasting, but it's proven wildly unpopular, everybody just ended up defaulting to here. I think having a personality like Dr. Fung has kept this intermittent fasting related thread alive where others have eventually faded.

Quote:
More specifically does it have the same metabolic affect as low fat/calories diets alone over sustained periods (slowed metabolism)?


Good question... I was thinking about one kind of intermittent fasting the other day. You could eat 500 calories less every day, or just skip eating one day a week--either way, you're eating 3500 calories less a week. But in one case, 6 out of 7 days of the week--nothing has changed. It seems plausible that the chronic calorie restriction, while seemingly milder, could cause more of a stress on the system, and more of a metabolic slowdown.

When you talk about 600-800 calories--once calories are that low, things are a bit different. Fasting vs. eating to appetite could be looked at as a continuum. Eat nothing, and if you have enough fat to spare, very often there'll be appetite suppression after a day or two. In very low calorie diet studies, the same thing happens--people eat 600 or 800 calories a day, and after a few days, there's an appetite suppression. I think it's probably true that there's a certain threshold, where insulin is low enough for this appetite suppression to kick in. Dr. Fung talks about daily calories with bariatric surgery being forced down low enough that the people are basically forced into a kind of fast.

Some people will go on a low carb diet, and that's enough--they'll end up eating the same 1500 calories they'd have eaten on a semi-starvation diet, except that there's no intentional decrease in calories, they're just satisfied with less--and feel as energetic as ever, or more so. The difference might be that at that calorie level, low carb just brought their insulin levels a lot lower.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 20:57
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,086
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
This article is going a bit off-topic from fasting but since it discusses insulin resistance and sensitivity, I wonder what the folks on this thread think of Chris Gardner follow-on research to his earlier studies LF vs LC. The study results indicate there wasn't much difference, but Bill Lagokos sees something else, that also relates back to Woo's criticism of JM/Fung...he is really NOT insulin resistant but very insulin sensitive now. Net down, Bill thinks that after losing on LC, to finish consider switching to HCLF.

Janet - the quote you referenced:

Quote:
Don’t be tied down to one approach; different #contexts require different approaches, and both can change over time.


is really the key and something I've been curious about lately. White rice or starch resistant potatoes (cold in a potato salad) are a couple things that I've recently discovered don't impact me negatively. Your referenced article and teasers article (https://aeon.co/essays/hunger-is-ps...-makes-it-worse) seem to dovetail nicely. Eating healthy, unprocessed foods and the timing of eating including regular periods of not eating (IF) seem to be the predominant factors for controlling IR and achieving well being. These are interesting approaches to test.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Sat, Mar-26-16, 21:14
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,086
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohamy
https://aeon.co/essays/hunger-is-ps...-makes-it-worse
"The Hunger Mood" is genious. Calorie counting never worked for me. If I'm focused on calories I'm focused on food and I wanna eat. Same with the daily scale number--too many variables to pretend it's a measure of my daily progress. It is all about DON'T POKE THE TIGER. Which for me is remaining in ketosis. I can meander peacefully and intuitively around food while in ketosis. If my hunger mood is aroused with cheese or a handful of nuts, it is a FIGHT with that tiger.

Agreed. I've become very detached with the minute details and tracking I used to pay attention to a couple years ago. It was valuable at the time, as that exercise gave me a structure and an approach for a WOE that worked and still works for me. Becoming more detached lately without worrying about details also works. It's easier. A WOE has become a WOL.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Sun, Mar-27-16, 05:39
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,124
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
This article is going a bit off-topic from fasting but since it discusses insulin resistance and sensitivity, I wonder what the folks on this thread think of Chris Gardner follow-on research to his earlier studies LF vs LC. The study results indicate there wasn't much difference, but Bill Lagokos sees something else, that also relates back to Woo's criticism of JM/Fung...he is really NOT insulin resistant but very insulin sensitive now. Net down, Bill thinks that after losing on LC, to finish consider switching to HCLF.

http://caloriesproper.com/chris-gardner-strikes-again/
(many graphs/charts, couldn't really copy)


One think Bill links to there is a post he did on a study comparing an Atkin's style diet to the more moderate-carb Zone diet, the study was authored by Barry Sears, where low carb didn't result in greater weight loss. One problem in this that he does mention is that both diets were calorie-restricted, in many low carb studies, there is no calorie limit given, but very often people will end up eating less calories anyways.

In that study, he mentions that there was a decrease in hunger both in Zone and in Atkins dieters. But this was in the context of restricting calories to 1500 in both groups. There is a problem in this--in that a spontaneous decrease to 1500 calories or so is fairly common in low carb ad-lib studies. But do calories spontaneously decrease when eating 40 percent carbohydrate, 30 protein, 30 fat? They sure didn't for me. A little of this, a little of that--improved macronutrient ratio plus calorie restriction might reduce hunger, but without a spontaneous decrease in food intake, Zone ratios wouldn't actually have much effect on insulin vs. SAD ratios.

Bill at CaloriesProper;
Quote:
Low carb diet: participants went from 230 grams/d to less than 50 for the first 3 months, then creeped up to ~80 over the next 3 months.

Will the critics say “the carbz weren’t low enough!”? REALLY?


Yes, yes they will.

Personally, I did the "moderate" Zone diet, following the Zone Blocks put me around 1400 calories. What's the problem? I did have a decrease in appetite while losing weight. But eventually I was at goal. How is that a problem?

Maybe moderate carbs worked if calories were restricted. Lowering calories does decrease insulin after all. But then I reach goal, increase the calories to keep from losing more weight (because 1400 calories doesn't cut it for me). Once I'm eating more, insulin is going to go up. Even if I went off Zone ratios at that point, added in more fat rather than carbs or protein to fill in the gap, insulin would go up. And the appetite suppression would go away.

For a decade or so on mostly Atkins-style low carb, my setpoint seemed to be 170 pounds. The last few years, more consciously pursuing ketosis, it seems to be 160 pounds--which might not sound like much, but in that previous decade, it was a real struggle to hold it down at 160 for very long.


Bill posted this in the comments section of his Gardner study post;


Quote:
You know what happens though (re your last scenario). Plateau on LC = MUST LOW CARB HARDER => VLC => keto => ?neurosis =>..." -Anastasia Boulais



I have had two clear psychotic breaks in my life, and my basal state is one of strong social anxiety. Mere neurosis might be an improvement.
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Sun, Mar-27-16, 05:54
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,856
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
I have had two clear psychotic breaks in my life, and my basal state is one of strong social anxiety. Mere neurosis might be an improvement.


Just scare tactics. Eat differently from the norm and you get some kind of mental health label. I've not had a psychotic break but I did suffer from major depression and anxiety. Both of these are gone since I switched to very low carb. One person's neurosis is another person's sensible eating.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Sun, Mar-27-16, 08:47
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,086
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
One think Bill links to there is a post he did on a study comparing an Atkin's style diet to the more moderate-carb Zone diet, the study was authored by Barry Sears, where low carb didn't result in greater weight loss. One problem in this that he does mention is that both diets were calorie-restricted, in many low carb studies, there is no calorie limit given, but very often people will end up eating less calories anyways.

Personally, I did the "moderate" Zone diet, following the Zone Blocks put me around 1400 calories. What's the problem? I did have a decrease in appetite while losing weight. But eventually I was at goal. How is that a problem?

Maybe moderate carbs worked if calories were restricted. Lowering calories does decrease insulin after all. But then I reach goal, increase the calories to keep from losing more weight (because 1400 calories doesn't cut it for me). Once I'm eating more, insulin is going to go up. Even if I went off Zone ratios at that point, added in more fat rather than carbs or protein to fill in the gap, insulin would go up. And the appetite suppression would go away.

For a decade or so on mostly Atkins-style low carb, my setpoint seemed to be 170 pounds. The last few years, more consciously pursuing ketosis, it seems to be 160 pounds--which might not sound like much, but in that previous decade, it was a real struggle to hold it down at 160 for very long.

And this comment in bold gets to the crux of the matter. It's possible to lose weight using varied approaches of LCHF or LFHC and sometimes anything along that continuum as long as one restricts calories along the higher carb end. The question is whether this is something that's sustainable for a WOE that becomes a WOL. I, too, have found it far easier to be in ketosis the majority of the time and be able to follow an enjoyable WOE without having to be conscious of making an adjustment due to being in a temporary calorie-reduced state. I may eat fewer calories by being LCHFKD, but it's not forced or voluntary, it just happens. When someone can maintain a healthy WOE for years, not months, then we're on to something.
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Sun, Mar-27-16, 10:43
Kinmount's Avatar
Kinmount Kinmount is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 505
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 205/181.8/145 Female 5 ft 4 in
BF:
Progress: 39%
Location: Southern Ontario
Default

Quote:
GRB5111 said: I may eat fewer calories by being LCHFKD, but it's not forced or voluntary, it just happens.


Quote:
From the Q&A to Dr. Fung in the subscription section of dietdoctor.com QUESTION: When an intermittent fast is complete (say after 16 to 20 hours) , does one then consume that day’s entire allocated macros for dinner? As an example, after a 20 hour intermittent fast would a person then consume a dinner of 1200 calories in the “standard” LCHF ratios of ~5% carbs, ~20% protein, and ~75% fats? Or should the gross number of dinner calories be ratcheted down? (remainder snipped)

Dr. Fung response: I don’t recommend counting calories. After the fast, I would try to eat as normally as possible. That would be your usual dinner but perhaps a slightly larger portion of it.

Remember that protein intake on a fasting day will be much lower than normal. On your eating day, you can simply make up for it by taking higher dose, although most people eat at least 3-4x as much protein than what is needed for normal health.


I think these 2 things mostly answer my questions.

If I have heard/read the material on Dr. Fung's site correctly, then the answer to my 2nd question is: it shouldn't matter because the body acts as it's own thermometer, and the benefits of the LCHF plus the IF puts you in a metabolic situation that is very different than just plain CRaP (long term calorie reduction).

Thanks for your help in answering my questions.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Sun, Mar-27-16, 11:28
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Maintaining
Posts: 3,281
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 62 inches
BF:22%
Progress: 100%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

I would like to interject my own experience to this part of the conversation.

Following the rule of eating only when hungry and stopping when full while eating LCHF+IF, over time my calorie count has fallen much lower and I've become concerned that my metabolism is compromised.

For the past month I've been doing n=1 in an attempt to raise my body temp, which is low. Using the same underarm thermometer at roughly the same time of day every day I have logged my temp.

Upon rising at 3:30am my temp is 96 F. After my 2-mile walk, it falls 2 degrees, then after eating and in mid afternoon it goes up to 97, but never reaches 98 throughout the day.

To raise the temperature, I've been eating LCHF with every 4th day being a refeed, except the past 6 days which have all been HCHC. Nothing has worked to alter my temperature pattern.

This experiment has failed to give me the desired result. From so many years of dieting, my metabolism seems to have just gotten slower and my body temp lower. As a result of my n=1, my joints have reverted to aches, I've gained pounds and bloat and my sleep patterns are very disturbed.

It's in my best interest to go back to LCHF +IF.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Wed, Mar-30-16, 13:21
voguesd voguesd is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 31
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 237/140/130 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 91%
Default

Dr. Fung posted on his Facebook page something to the effect of --- Louise wrote the article using his book as a reference. And the 1000 calorie limit on non fasting days was not his advice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:57.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.