Something I can relate to as what was previously to me "the most important meal of the day!" No longer! When I was running marathons and training early in the morning, I'd scarf down a whole grain peanut butter and honey sandwich on the way to work after my morning run washed down by a fruit and yogurt smoothie. I wondered why around 11:30 I felt lightheaded and weak . . . right, I diagnosed myself as hypoglycemic. Why!?! I was fit; although, not at the weight I should have been putting in the weekly mileage for training. I was eating "healthy" with plenty of healthy carbs and vegetables. BS! It wasn't until I further diagnosed why I was getting low blood sugar a couple hours after a "healthy" breakfast.

Fast forward where I concluded that my carb consumption was spiking my insulin, clearing out my BG, and making me feel like I was going to pass out. Hmmm, maybe give up the carbs. Maybe cut down on frequency of eating during the day. Maybe even give up "the most important meal of the day!"

The rest is history for many of us, and being in ketosis means that I can eat the right fat and not get fat, and do IF and not get hungry and maintain my weight and health very nicely.

As for the initial point in the latest series of of posts, being in ketosis tempers my insulin response when I consume fat, and as Rawnut's graphs show, the insulin response is far less with fat consumption than anything else and lowest when fasting.

As someone correctly observed, Fung went with IF over any variation of LCHFKD due to its ease of adoption where most didn't even need to know how to identify a carb. I believe it's most effective coming into a fast from a ketogenic state, but it works for those running on glucose as well.

If your goal is muscle sparing along with weight loss, that difference in the amount of fat lost is significant. Those on the CER lost 1.8 kilos of lean body mass, out of the 5.

Those on IER lost 1.2 kilos of lean body mass, while losing 5.7.

Hanging on to muscle means that the IER people were spared more of the slowing of metabolism that occurs with weight loss, along with taking up less space, overall.

Rawnut--thanks for the graphs, those are very illuminating. I do also have to wonder--what sort of people were used for that test, and would there be a difference if one was keto-adapted?

I'm not seeing a black and white difference between a very low calorie diet, and a fast containing any amount of calories. It seem to me that there has to be a continuum, based on the amount and type of macronutrients used. At some point there doesn't seem to be any justification for calling it a "fast"--what is the true definition?

Regardless, I'm not ready to give up my coffee with HWC on "fasting" days. Still waiting for the evidence that a true water fast is far superior to one with some fatty "training wheels".

http://chriskresser.com/when-your-“...-normal-part-2/

Good article. I tried to explain to the Dr that low-carb and fasting for > 10 hrs (among other effects) can give higher FBS results than your normal readings with a low A1c.

Takeaway: "*If you’re following a low-carb diet, fasting blood sugars in the 90s and even low 100s may not be a problem, provided your A1c and post-meal blood sugars are within the normal range"

Dr. Fung did an interview with Jimmy Moore yesterday.


https://vimeo.com/139612930

He mentions the Atkins fat fast. He's not agin it, just one more option.

I think trust your body. If a block of cream cheese, or a couple avocados, or a can of salmon (in my case) is more comfortable than a water fast, then there's probably a good reason. If a water fast and a fat fast were equally comfortable--I would bet that, probably, actual fat loss would be faster with the water fast.

Like like like, Teaser.
We come back again and again to what works for YOU (me!)