I need to eat around 3000 calories per day to support my powerlifting training, and if I don't eat something first thing in the morning with a shitload of carbs -- usually something like rolled oats, berries, and a few bananas -- then I'm usually gassed and feeling like crap by 10.
A few friends of mine fast intermittently and train in the morning before eating but it's beyond me how that is not just pure torture.
Welcome to the Army, perhaps. Ask them if they're ex-mil, or are copying someone who's ex-mil.
25 years later the concept of exercising on anything but an empty stomach feels weird to me. Like if you put forth a true 100% effort how do you not puke?
Saying that willpower is a factor implies that it is unpleasant, which is actually agreeing with the implication of "pure torture" that the parent comment implied.
Not really, it has nothing to do with it being pleasant or not. It means that you need to commit to actually doing it (like anything in life).
I'm absolutely fine with it and prefer it, like many other people. It's definitely not "torture".
Maybe it isn't for some but mostly it's about overcoming the change in routine and there's no shortcut to changing or building habits, it's just willpower.
Usually something only requires willpower if it's not pleasant. I.e. It doesn't take willpower for me to eat, but it does take willpower for me to avoid eating unhealthy foods.
> A few friends of mine fast intermittently and train in the morning before eating but it's beyond me how that is not just pure torture.
It's just habit. I stopped eating breakfast in primary school and always preferred doing sports in the morning. Currently doing fasted weightlifting/cardio 5x a week first thing in the morning.
I'm currently doing only one big meal a day for lunch so technically that's fasting since 2pm the previous day.
Same here, rolled oats w/ banana in the morning, I'm surprised that I don't feel hungry after eating that for a couple hours. I have to leave a gap of around 4-5 hours between eating, and lifting.
with late dinner the night before this is totally doable even when lifting heavy in the morning. some competetive lifters especially if they were cutting to make weight 'go for the bloat' after the weigh in - pizza, whole milk, pedialyte :) and then all they have before the meet in the morning is coffee.
then there are the 'early birds' who get up at 5 am and have a 4 egg omelet before the meet. they disgust me :)
Can confirm. Did a year long dirty-bulk on a ketogenic diet while lifting heavy weights, got fat (and didn't really put on that much extra muscle either)...
"When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter"
Those pretty packages of meat are just as much "man made" as the foods you demonize. If you want to eat meat, I suggest hunting and only using your teeth and hands (claws?) to kill your prey and to eat the meat raw; gotta eat all of it too, no picking and choosing what parts you want either.
"If you want to eat that cupcake or enjoy that cold glass of beer be sure to exercise it off."
This is HORRIBLE advice. Treating exercise like a punishment for enjoying food is like a one-way ticket to Eating Disorder Town. Diet and exercise are important, but they should be used to compliment each other and not to negate being bad at the other.
There's a world of difference between a 'package' of meat and a corn dog. I love eating meat, I see no need to 'hunt' for the thing. In the same way I love apples, I'm not going to grow an Apple tree in my yard and only eat apples from that.
To be honest there's a big problem with seeing exercise as a 'punishment'. I enjoy exercising just as much as I enjoy a cold glass of beer (before or after) and to be frank my advice suggest the two are complementary.
That wasn't my point. My point is your distinction between "man-made" and "not-man-made" food is completely arbitrary and based on your personal preferences.
Your point is nitpickery. You know perfectly well what OP means when he refers to processed food as man made food. No one would misunderstand it. What you consider to be an arbitrary distinction (which in itself is an arbjtrary distinction), is in this case rather clearly defined.
I got up to 250+ (3 reps), this makes me feel like a feeble baby! Have you been lifting for long? I can deadlift 300+, I bet you deadlift 700? Curious, lemme know!
Been lifting with a focus on powerlifting for about 7 years, my last meet total was 515 squat, 585 deadlift and 336 bench at 185 lbs. Be patient, get on a tried program, put in the work, eat and sleep and it'll come.
I am curious if you had to deal with any injuries over the years. My body seems to be the type that gets injured easily, no matter what I do I seem to get injured. I am obsessive about form, I seem to get "overuse injuries", shoulder impingement, sensitive it band ect.
Can't speak for GP, but I kept hitting a wall in strength gains with shoulder or lower back pain until I made mobility work a priority. It doesn't have to be fancy or extreme, frequency is the key. Search out Joe DeFranco's Limber 11 and Simple 6 for a decent routine and try to get 3-4 times a week minimum. After a month you'll be surprised how different your body feels.
Interesting. Same question someone else asked: What's your injury history been like?
Coincidentally, I just got back from the doctor. I had my right ankle x-rayed because it's been sore for couple of weeks. I kind of limp in the morning until it warms up and then I can walk normally but step the wrong way and it can be painful.
Nothing wrong. They said it's probably a strained ligament issue.
I am doing 200 lbs squats and same on Romanian deadlift. My guess is that my squat biomechanics is off and I am doing a number on my right ankle. I just started reading "Starting Strength" by Mark Rippetoe and will get some coaching to see about fixing problems.
I got cocky as a novice, and fucked my back pretty bad and was out of comission for a 4 months or so. Got cocky chasing huge (for me, at the time) numbers and ended up losing way more progress than I gained. Minor things here and there in my shoulders and elbows, which I ended up fixing by tearing apart my own bench press form and being meticulous with ever part of the lift. Bench press is, in my opinion, the most technical lift of the big three.
Slow consistent progress wins out in the long run, I'm a huge fan of sub-maximal training and going for rep PRS and not maxing out often. I only compete at most twice per year, and don't bother going for max attempts when I'm not at a meet.
All of my training these days is based around the principles in Jim Wendler's 5/3/1 and I've slowly added my own tweaks and customizations over time to it and it hasn't let me down.
Don't neglect mobility work. It's boring, but it'll save you in the long run.
Starting Strength is a fanastic resource about learning about the lifts. Personally, I think Mark Rippetoe's training programs are pretty crap but the information about the technical aspects of the lifts in the book are great.
Alan Thrall also has some videos on Youtube on the bench press that are fantastic too.
>Don't neglect mobility work. It's boring, but it'll save you in the long run.
Dude, yeah. Been lifting on and off for about five years and made a little progress. Just started working with a trainer and realized that I've never done a proper dead lift because I lack flexibility in my hamstrings. I always kind of blew off mobility as not being related to strength. A real eye opener.
This is making me really want to start powerlifting again. I got up to a 420 deadlift (sumo style), and 320x4 back squat, before I wound up drifting away from it.
I think once my shoulder finishes healing (rotator cuff surgery), I'm going to start lifting seriously again.
“The Iron never lies to you. You can walk outside and listen to all kinds of talk, get told that you’re a god or a total bastard. The Iron will always kick you the real deal. The Iron is the great reference point, the all-knowing perspective giver. Always there like a beacon in the pitch black. I have found the Iron to be my greatest friend. It never freaks out on me, never runs. Friends may come and go. But two hundred pounds is always two hundred pounds.” --Henry Rollins
Losing 100 pounds and a ketogenic diet basically cured me. The main thing was cutting out all refined carbohydrates from my diet, but I just feel better when I replace nearly all carbs with fats. Putting on some muscle in the weightroom also made me substantially more insulin sensitive. My bloodwork has never been better, and I'm off my bipolar medication. From what I've read, it's most likely because of the slightly nootropic effect that ketones have on the brain.
+1 more anecdote, I was never diabetic, but doing keto for a year helped me lose 60 lbs and regain my insulin sensitivity.
Even now if I eat keto for breakfast and lunch and moderate carb for supper. Even when I have the occasional high-carb meal, I feel dramatically different than I did before keto/weight loss.
I don't know about the pancreas, but both abstaining form alcohol and keto are shown to dramatically reduce the amount of fat stored in the liver.
For anyone reading: Please consult your doctor before altering your dosage of mind-altering medications. Some of them, for example, have to be stepped down in dosage gradually, lest bad side effects happen.
I don't think this is standard-of-care yet, though some docs I know will go this route. There is a good amount of emerging research of the positive effects of the keto diet on brain health, including bipolar disorder:
I'm not diabetic, but I completely agree with the subjective improvement that comes with a low-carb diet. Even a light-ish carby meal -- say, penne with pesto -- makes me feel substantially heavier and more bloated than eating a steak slathered with butter.
Anecdotally, my father didn't develop the disease until after he went on a ketogenic diet, but the doctors believe chronic lack of sleep caused his diabetes so diet probably was not a factor either way.
That's unfortunate. Type 1 or 2 diabetes? My mother is T1 and she cannot do a low-carb diet because of the possibility of ketoacidosis, which she's already been hospitalized once for.
I would suggest she tries the program created by Dr. Neil Barnard in this case as he actually uses a low fat high carb diet in order to reverse diabetes. Both my father and father-in-law got rid of the medications (my inlaw even had to take insulin before the program) and have overall improved their health, lost weight and are feeling much more energetic. My father was able to be out of his medications after two months and my father-in-law in 4 months.
i'm a keto True Believer[tm] but removing carbs also just immediately removes a ton of calories which directly contributes to weight loss. you can eat a surprising amount of protein and fat and veg and won't replace the calories lost.
a hamburger bun, and a plate of french fries is honestly like a thousand calories. one thousand! that's like a huge ribeye steak.
you don't even want to know how many calories are in a mission-style burrito tortilla. it's completely out of control. that kind of food is meant for hard labor, not internet finger tapping.
these discussions always devolve into a bunch of numbers by diet pedants who seemingly have no passion for cuisine.
i'm sorry but all the numbers in the world will not make me give up a nice fatty spiced chicken shawarma, or a juicy sausage and kraut, or a nice ribeye steak with a glass of pinot noir. i'd rather be dead and in the ground.
on the other hand, i'm fine skipping the bread and eating just a couple of fries.
The incredible thing is, our tastes physically change in just a matter of several weeks. You're encouraged to try healthy eating as an experiment for just three weeks - I think you may change your mind on consuming unhealthy foods.
> An inability to perceive low concentrations of fatty acids in foods was associated with greater consumption of fatty foods, specifically butter, meat, dairy, and increasing BMI.
> Within a behavioral economic perspective, the reinforcement value of low-fat foods may increase following a low-fat dietary intervention, whereas the reinforcing properties of high-fat foods may decline. This is desirable as low-fat foods hold many advantages over high-fat foods in terms of weight maintenance.
> The preference results of this study demonstrate a steady, progressive decline in liking for salt in soup following dietary intervention and monitoring activities aimed at reducing sodium intake. Approximately 3 mo were required for preferences to stabilize at a significantly lower salt level, which was maintained at 1 yr. This may be of relevance in clinical settings where low-sodium diets are used for treatment or prevention of hypertension.
> Alterations in the fat content of the diet modulated taste sensitivity to C18:1 among lean subjects, which was increased following a 4-week period of fat restriction and attenuated following the high-fat diet. The failure of the high-fat diet to alter fatty acid taste thresholds among OW/OB subjects suggests that these individuals were 'adapted' to high-fat exposure, perhaps because of differences in habitual fat consumption. Taken together, these data suggest that excessive dietary fat attenuates nutrient sensing epithelia response in the oral cavity, which could be associated with changes in diet and weight status.
Why be flippant? I've simply cited resources which may be relevant to your interests. Do you have a problem with the works, or any evidence to the contrary which I may examine?
Do yourself a favor and spend an hour in your local hospital's cardiology department, then you will surely experience true terror. What's more extreme - a triple-bypass surgery, or eating broccoli every day?
Diabetes isn't about sugar specifically, it's about carbohydrates. I'm sure you didn't have a "no carb" month -- which means your point is kinda meaningless. You may have avoided the 38 grams of sugar in that can of coke, but did you compensate by eating 4 handfuls of grapes?
To a diabetic, all carbs are bad, not just the ones that rot your teeth.
I believe you're meaning to allude to refined carbohydrates, like the ones found in soda drinks. "No carbs" would mean consuming no fruit or vegetables, at all - not exactly a practical strategy for healthful eating. (Note: grapes are especially high on the glycemic index and not an ideal representation of healthy carbohydrate, so your likening them to a can of soda isn't entirely inaccurate)
> The vegetarian diet (~60% of energy from carbohydrates,15% protein and 25% fat) consisted of vegetables, grains,legumes, fruits and nuts. Animal products were limited to amaximum of one portion of low-fat yogurt a day.
> In conclusion, a vegetarian diet led to a greater improve-ment in quality of life and mood. Patients consuming a vegetarian diet felt less constrained than those consuming the conventional diet. Disinhibition decreased with a vegetarian diet. The decrease in feelings of hunger tended to be greater in the vegetarian group. All these results suggest that a vegetarian diet is sustainable in the long term and may exhibit desired improvements not only in physical, but also in mental health of patients with Type 2 diabetes.
Never said it was. The topic just made me think of it is all. And I didn't substitute with a ton of fruits. I barely ate any. I also eat very little carbs.
Semi-strenuous exercise to deplete available glucose, immediately followed by fasting.
Cardio works well for this. Options aren't limited to running. Speed walking or slow walking at a 5-15% incline on a treadmill for some amount of time can achieve the necessary glycogen depletion.
Consuming coconut milk as a fat source with its high level of medium chain triglycerides also generates more ketones per fat ingested then other fat sources
Since glycogen storage requires lots of water, losing 1-5lbs in water weight after exercising is a good sign that the glycogen stores have been depleted enough for the body to start looking for other sources of energy. One should be able to hit the scale, go exercise and sweat a ton, then go back to the scale 30mins to an hour later and see the water depletion. For myself I will hit the treadmill walking at 15% incline @ 2-4mph for 45mins to an hour while profusely sweating from the 3min mark till I stop.
This is not a binary thing, as intensity increases the substrate gradually shifts from FFAs to glucose. If one has been starving, fasting or eating very low carb for a while, the muscles will also use ketone bodies in place of glucose.
Not really, ketosis starts when the liver is depleted of glycogen. While you can try to use vigorous exercise to speed this along, vigorous exercise will primarily target the glycogen stored in your muscle which does not effect ketosis. If you simply start eating < 25g of net carbs you will be in ketosis in 18-36 hours, no magic or pain needed. Do keep in mind that insulin (which you will not be producing much of) also controls electrolyte retention so you may need to increase your intake or supplement (see r/keto for details and advice) .
Eat less than 25g of carbohydrates per day, you will be in ketosis in about 24 hours when your liver glycogen is depleted. Drink lots of water, and suppliment electrolytes (sodium, magnesium, potasium -- drinking a cup of beef broth every day and using a "No-Salt" substitute on nearly all my food is what I do) to avoid the dreaded "keto flu".
No, this just puts your body into starvation mode.
You should eat proteins, vegetables (especially leafy green ones) and a moderate amount of fruit. Natural fats like animal fats are ok too, depending on other health factors.
I am not a doctor but a ketogenic diet helped me lose weight and feel great. 230lb back down to 165lbs, but I am healthiest it seems around 183lbs.
> This same condition, ketosis, occurs naturally when people are literally starving to death or seriously ill. During starvation this metabolic state is a kindness of nature allowing the victim to suffer much reduced pains of hunger while dying. During illness the suppression of the appetite frees the person to rest and recuperate, rather then be forced by hunger to gather and prepare food. Because ketogenic diets simulate this metabolic state seen with serious illness, I refer to them as “the make yourself sick diets.” As we will see below, another reason low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets deserve this title is they contain significant amounts of the very foods — the meats — that the American Cancer Society and the Heart Association tell us contribute to our most common causes of death and disability.
> A plant-based diet beat out the conventional American Diabetes Association diet in a head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trial, without restricting portions, no calorie or carb counting. A review of all such studies found that individuals following plant-based diets experience improved reductions in blood sugars, body weight, and cardiovascular risk, compared with those following diets that included animal products.
The diets most keto advocates support is not high protein; rather, it is high fat, moderate protein, very low carb (< 25 net grabs daily). The science to date supports that as being a very healthy diet, especially if your fat source is not omega-6 polyunsaturated fat, but is instead dominated by monounsaturated, omega-3 polyunsaturated and yes, saturated fat.
> Dr. Hill reports having received consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola
Second study:
> This study proves a principle and does not provide clinical guidance; given the known benefits of fat restriction, future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed.
Third study:
> The study was designed to compare weight loss and cardiovascular risk in the short term; our long-term results, although appearing successful, must be considered as anecdotal, and further long-term follow-up studies must be conducted to confirm these findings.
Fourth study:
> Although advocates for very low carbohydrate diets are likely to embrace the results of this study, several points of caution need to be emphasized. First, a single study of a specific dietary regimen cannot provide a full assessment of safety and efficacy. Despite this study being the longest randomized, controlled trial of a very low carbohydrate diet reported, our results are still limited by the 6-month time frame. Whether the very low carbohydrate diet will produce sustained weight loss and continued improvement in cardiovascular risk factors over longer periods of time remains to be determined; the gradual increase in carbohydrate consumption in the final 3 months of the study suggests that some degree of recidivism is likely in persons on this diet. In addition, increased dietary fat has been linked to certain types of cancer and may have effects on cardiovascular health beyond the risk factors assessed in this study.
Fifth study:
> Financial Interest: Dr Hennekens is funded by the Agatston Research Institute, a nonprofit foundation, as Director of Research.
Sixth study:
> Participants were healthy and were followed for only 24 weeks, factors that limit generalization of our results. The low-carbohydrate diet has not been studied extensively in patients with chronic illness, and certain patients may require close medical supervision when following this diet. Furthermore, weight loss resulting from the low-carbohydrate diet may be difficult to maintain
after 24 weeks.
> Potential Financial Conflicts of Interests: Grants received: E.C. Westman (Robert C. Atkins Foundation); Grants pending: E.C. Westman and W.S. Yancy Jr. (Robert C. Atkins Foundation)
Seventh study:
> This study was supported by a grant from The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.
Eight study:
> There were initially 20 subjects enrolled in each experimental group [...] Over the course of the study, four subjects dropped out of the LF group and five dropped out of the LC group.
Ninth study:
> 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. [calorie restriction does not work in the long term, period]
Tenth study:
> Carbohydrate restriction was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat intake. [saturated fat causes CVD and other chronic illness]
Eleventh study:
> Mood and other symptoms were evaluated by participant self-report using the Atkins Health Indicator Test [I'm sure that's not at all biased /s]
Twelfth study:
> Limitations included the lack of a valid and comparable assessment of individual adherence to the 4 different diets, the lack of data on whether participants had familiarity using any of the specific study diets prior to enrolling in the trial, and the lack of assessment of satiety.
Thirteenth study:
> Whether either of these diets would produce similar outcomes over longer periods and under ad libitum conditions or in populations that are more vulnerable to adverse effects, such as persons with specific psychological difficulties, requires further investigation.
Seriously, I had to stop at that. I'm sure the rest are also short-sighted and cannot be generalized as a healthful diet.
Care to explain why the many people who post their bloodwork every week on r/keto have lowered body weight, improved lipid panels, better fasting glucose scores? Its easy to say these are anecdotal, but when it happens weekly for years- (That of course not to say its well controlled, because of course its not, or that there may not be some sampling bias).
I gave it a try myself and judged it by all the objective and subjective measures at my disposal. It works (at least for me).
I can respect your skepticism, are the pending studies being done by http://nusi.org/ well enough designed to be considered weighty by you?
You've basically nailed it - the evidence is anecdotal and, coming from a keto echo-chamber, is obviously subject to confirmation bias. Therefore, these findings cannot be trusted as statistically significant.
By the same measure, we could argue smoking cigarettes is a reasonable, even healthful thing to do (on a slight tangent: exactly that was suggested by doctors in the 50's and 60's) - after all, we all know heavy smokers who haven't dropped dead, but on the contrary seem alive and thriving.
I'm glad it worked for you, but have you also fairly and objectively evaluated a plant-based, high-carb, low-fat diet? I think only then can the two be compared without bias, at least as I see it.
Regarding NuSI - I could write many paragraphs about the organization. If you have some time, please do check out these critical, detailed videos: http://plantpositive.com/warning-signs-nusi-guys-1/ and let me know what you think.
"During starvation this metabolic state is a kindness of nature allowing the victim to suffer much reduced pains of hunger while dying."
I hope you have a cite for that, as it ignores the basics of natural selection.
There is no way "nature" would select for a means to reduce the discomfort of starving to death, as death would remove that being from the gene pool, leaving that mechanism out of the gene pool as well.
What appears to work best on the scale of a clinical study may not work so well for some subsets of the population. I've yet to find any sort of plant-based meal that makes me nearly as energetic and satisfied as one that includes animal protein of some kind.
Please check my related comment below about adjusting taste preferences. While it's true a greater amount of non-animal foods are necessary on account of them being generally less calorically dense (while at the same time being more nutrient dense), you can certainly find meals to satisfy your desires with patience and resolve. Start small - replace the beef patty with a black bean patty, for instance.
Do you realize that most people that "do keto" end up eating more veggies that they did before? There are tons of keto friendly veggies.
You can eat a ketogenic diet and eat nearly unrestricted amounts (except by satiety) amounts of things like cabbage, cauliflower, radishes (great cooked btw), brussel sprouts, spinach, green onions, broccoli, kohlrabi, lettuce, avocado, sprouts, green beans, rutabaga, leeks, yellow squash, zucchini, mushrooms, herbs.
Add that with some fish, meat, nuts and/or cheese and you have a very healthy diet.
Between the satiety of fat/protein and high-fiber foods above, its very easy to hit one's caloric goals and have a minimal blood glucose level.
Thanks - I wasn't aware of such diets, and I'm glad to hear people are eating their greens regardless of which diet they follow.
However, you're incorrect to assume adding meats and dairy products - even so-called "lean" ones - which are laden with cholesterol, saturated and trans fats - is at all healthy. All credible evidence suggests quite the opposite. If you have any studies which contradict my assertion, I would love for us to examine them together.
I mean you no offense, but to me it sounds like your understanding of nutrition science is 10 years in the past.
I do want to point out naturally occurring transfat has very different properties than the artificial common forms. I have never seen a well designed study show a low-fat diet to be superior to a high-fat-moderate-protien-very-low-carb one (usually referred to as VHFLC). I'd be interested if you know of any.
It is no longer generally accepted that dietary cholesterol is dominate factor unless you have mutation such as some of the PCSK9 mutations. Your body syntheses much more cholesterol everyday than you actually eat. The latest US government dietary guidelines has drastically shifted its position on cholesterol, write-up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-...
We have since learned many things such as the importance of HDL/LDL ratio as being predictive over just LDL for example.
No offense taken, I hear what you're saying quite frequently.
Regarding the 2015 DGAC - the report did no original research to exonerate cholesterol, but rather deferred to a 2014 report by the American Heart Association, which has a financial incentive to label cholesterol-laden foods as, "heart healthy". Of course the media has chosen to play them up to stir up controversy and give the illusion there is vast disagreement in nutrition science, but that's simply not the case.
What has happened "in the last 10 years" is intense pressure from food industry lobbying to dilute research, confuse the public and distract from messages warning of saturated fat and cholesterol. Please, check out these short videos to see what exactly I'm talking about:
(I apologize if this seems biased, coming from a single source, but if you check the videos, each has links to cited studies discussed - I simply favor the format the material is presented in)
The healthful HCLF diets you're seeking out are known as plant-based (usually vegan, but not exclusively) diets, and are always lauded as health-promoting, albeit supposedly "unpalpable".
Low-fat meaning, low in or void of saturated- and trans-fatty acids, high (10-15% of caloric intake) in essential polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (in the right ratio, ideally 1:1, but more practically, 1:3 or 1:5). Yet, many media outlets and conflict of interest research have no shame in claiming a diet as high as 30, 40, even 50 percent fat (always from animal products) are "low". This is simply nonsense! Your body needs only a little bit of fat, for example to increase vitamin absorption at each meal, or convert it to EPA/DHA.
High-carb meaning, the majority of calories are derived from whole, unrefined, plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruit, legumes and whole grains, especially ones low on the glycemic index (e.g. brown rice, whole grain pasta, beans, dark green leafy veg, colorful fruit variation, etc.)
Heck, I challenge you to find me a study which says a high-carb, low-fat diet as I've described is not a great recipe for human nutrition. Unfortunately, so many people find such a diet unreasonable for practical, social and other, personal reasons. Also unfortunate is the fact there's little money to be made in promoting these simple and unprocessed foods, so the academic world is not determined to research them.
Anyway, if you're interested in reading more about these sort of diets, check out the work by Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, to name a few. I've fully embraced the dietary lifestyle recommended by them and others, and can only praise the mental clarity, increased energy and satiation experienced as a result. I really believe the "trick" is to cut out processed and animal product foods altogether (at least to the degree you can sustainably practice and at the pace you find to be reasonable) - they're just unnecessary! Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but I figure it's worth sharing with you.
I wonder if we are operating with different ideas of what a VLCHF diet might look like.
Lets talk specifics, let me give an an example of what I might eat in a day on such a diet:
Breakfast:
Scamble: 2 eggs with 1 clove of garlic, one or two green onion strands, 3 diced radishes, mushrooms and cabbage (majority by volume). Coffee with cream.
Lunch:
Salad: Raw salmon, spinach, watercress, 1/4 an onion, sliced radishes, sliced almonds, avocado, sunflower seeds with a whole fat greek yogurt + olive oil dressing. Water.
Supper:
Medium rare steak with mushrooms, grilled kohlrabi and steamed asparagus. Unsweetened Iced green tea.
As you can see this would be a day low in processed foods, high in greens with both a low glycemic index and glycemic load, weighing in at a reasonable 1800 kcal. It blows my mind that the video's you shared calls something like this dangerous?! Not only is it far better than the average American diet, unlike a high-carb diet this no chance of leading to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and eventually type II diabetes.
No doubt your meal plan is already miles ahead of SAD (the standard American diet), and you deserve to pat yourself on the back. Avoiding fast food, added sugar beverages, eating organic foods (low in pesticide and higher in nutritional yield) is a huge leap in the right direction.
You've also packed a heavy dose of antioxidants, vitamins and minerals from the great veggies, healthy fats (avocado, sunflower seeds - note, not oil!). What's more, the salmon is high in EPA and DHA content, further reducing inflammation in the body and promoting the health of so many vital bodily functions. You've even correctly recognized a 1800 calorie daily allowance as being near optimal. It even appears you're meeting the World Health Organization's recommendation to get at least 55% of calories from carbohydrates and probably getting enough fiber (which only 3% of Americans do!)
Now, the bad news - by breakfast time, you've already exceeded the daily recommended intake for cholesterol (300 mg; each egg contains approximately 250 mg). The meats (even if local, wild-caught, or raised "naturally") most certainly contain questionable levels of persistent organic pollutants, which bioaccumulate at alarming rates in fat-soluble tissue of animals, estrogen, antibiotics, and possibly even harmful bacteria which will upset your gut glora and inflame the liver, colon and kidneys. The cooked steak has a dangerous amount of acrylamide and other carcinogens produced when flesh is cooked at high temperatures. Olive oil is just empty calories - just unnecessary fat with the majority of nutritional benefits destroyed by the extraction process. High amount of sodium from red meat is also known to increase blood pressure and cause insulin resistance. Nitrites and nitrates have also been shown to increase insulin resistance and to impair the function of the pancreatic beta cells. Finally, there is the heme iron found in the meat which is quite damaging if consumed in excess.
Now, I really don't think you need to worry, especially if your genetics don't predispose you to any chronic illness. But, I am of the opinion the outlined meals are not ideal. Maybe you're not interested in pursuing a gold nutrition standard each day and at each meal, and that's perfectly understandable! However, let's agree there is room for improvement, especially if you struggle with BMI, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, mood problems, attention defecit, or other ills, many of which are caused or at least exacerbated by the foods I've recommended avoiding.
On a slight tangent, have you used the website, Cronometer? It basically tallies up all the foods consumed in a day and gives a highly detailed report of what you ate, right down to each amino acid profile and the like. It's free - I really recommend checking it out!
I fear we may have to agree to disagree; ironically, I think we have a lot of common ground. I would like to point out of couple of closing thoughts:
>It even appears you're meeting the World Health Organization's recommendation to get at least 55% of calories from carbohydrates and probably getting enough fiber (which only 3% of Americans do!)
This doubtful; while the total carbs of this diet might reach this threshold- Most designers of well formed teratogenic diets are targeting net carbs (<30g). I would imagine this fiber portion of the carbs (well over 50% in this case) does not really count towards caloric carbs.
>you've already exceeded the daily recommended intake for cholesterol (300 mg; each egg contains approximately 250 mg)
Unless you have the right (wrong?) mutations, I think the jury is still out on this. Would you be surprised if I told you my serum cholesterol has not been negatively impacted?
>Nitrites and nitrates have also been shown to increase insulin resistance and
These meals should be limited to what naturally occurs- which is minimal compared to processed meat.
>However, let's agree there is room for improvement, especially if you struggle with BMI, high blood pressure..
This diet made it easy (satiety perspective) to shed 60 lbs and take my blood pressure from 138/75 -> 112/66. So while I cannot speak for others I really must disagree for my own account.
>On a slight tangent, have you used the website, Cronometer?
Coming from someone who earlier proclaimed, "i'm a keto True Believer[tm]", it's quite ironic seeing you say this. I wonder why I've struck such a chord with you?
"However, you're incorrect to assume adding meats and dairy products - even so-called "lean" ones - which are laden with cholesterol, saturated and trans fats"
Oh, dear.
First of all, meat and dairy don't HAVE meaningful amounts of transfat. Problematic transfats are man-made.
Secondly, there is NO proven link at all between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol absent carbs, Essentially all blood cholesterol is manufactured by the liver.
By all means, display your "credible evidence" to the contrary.
> meat and dairy don't HAVE meaningful amounts of transfat
In fact, they absolutely do. It's no doubt hydrogenated oils found in processed snack foods add trans fat as well, hence my emphasis on whole plant foods.
> The major dietary sources of trans fats listed in decreasing order. Processed foods and oils provide approximately 80 percent of trans fats in the diet, compared to 20 percent that occur naturally in food from animal sources
> there is NO proven link at all between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol
Surely you jest?
> Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of predicted change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol.
">>there is NO proven link at all between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol
>
>Surely you jest?
Here's a clear example of your intellectual dishonesty. You specifically cut out the "absent carbs" term when quoting me and then rattled off studies that specifically did not control for carb consumption.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you've meant. What does carbohydrate intake have to do with dietary cholesterol? The paper I had linked was a review of many other studies, all of which had defined diets. Can you explain and cite any links between blood cholesterol and carbohydrate intake?
>there is NO proven link at all between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol absent carbs
I would change "NO proven link" to "only a weakly correlated link (assuming the patient is not a member of the 8-15% of the population estimated to have a mutation related to improper cholesterol homeostasis)"
A few friends of mine fast intermittently and train in the morning before eating but it's beyond me how that is not just pure torture.