Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

James Warren wrote:

ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2012) — Scientists at the Gladstone Institutes have identified a novel mechanism by which a type
of low-carb, low-calorie diet -- called a "ketogenic diet" -- could delay the effects of aging. This fundamental
discovery reveals how such a diet could slow the aging process and may one day allow scientists to better treat or
prevent age-related diseases, including heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and many forms of cancer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1206142025.htm

Drop low carb enough long enough and thyroid reduces T3 output. That
reduces basal metabolism. Lower metabolism is associated with better
lonevity. In rats and mice anyways it looks like super low carb is the
macro-nutrient most responsible for the long life of underfed test
subjects. Might work in humans.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Drop low carb enough long enough and thyroid reduces T3 output.

Actually, "long enough" is the first 24 or 27 hours. And you don't have
to drop carbs, it happens with very low calorie consumption, too.

If the goal is basal metabolism reduction, then the goal is deliberately
triggering starvation mode and a stall. Not the usual goal for a low
carb dieter. The two week time scale of the usual T3 adjustment of
ketosis levels isn't enough for the longevity trigger.

That
reduces basal metabolism. Lower metabolism is associated with better
lonevity. In rats and mice anyways it looks like super low carb is the
macro-nutrient most responsible for the long life of underfed test
subjects. Might work in humans.

Super low calorie, leading to discussion of caloric restriction for
longevity. Low carb may be helpful, too, but very low consumption of
calories seems to be linked to longevity, too.

The original observation was with low calorie. Doing it low carb is the
refinement. It's been done to rats, worms, whatever. Not to humans.

Going to 20 for life might well extend life as long as all of the
non-carb nutrients are handled correctly.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:18:56 -0500, Susan wrote:


Going to 20 for life might well extend life as long as all of the
non-carb nutrients are handled correctly.

Not if you go to 20 but over consume calories. That raises
triglycerides, too, for one thing.

Staying below 20 grams of carbs would drastically LOWER trigs.

It would also be nearly impossible (in my opinion) to then
"over-consume" calories (in a normally active individual) while
staying at 20 grams of carbs per day. Eating less carbs means eating
more fat and protein, which are very hard to "over-consume."

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 01:59:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
The original observation was with low calorie. Doing it low carb is the
refinement. It's been done to rats, worms, whatever. Not to humans.

It doesn't work with monkeys either.

Plus, low calory diets are also (usually) LOWER carb diets (by
definition).

Going to 20 for life might well extend life

If only via a reduction of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, heart attacks
strokes, and cancer, by reducing the risk markers for those diseases.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The original observation was with low calorie. Doing it low carb is the
refinement. It's been done to rats, worms, whatever. Not to humans.

Because low carb induces the biochemical changes that come from
starvation, but not all the benefits if one eats in excess on LC, either.

Low carb induces the biochemical changes that come from a successful
predator diet. Calling it a starvation respondse does not make sense
given what low carbers actually eat. Which in addition tonot being in
excess is also not anywhere near starvation levels.

Going to 20 for life might well extend life as long as all of the
non-carb nutrients are handled correctly.

Not if you go to 20 but over consume calories. That raises
triglycerides, too, for one thing.

Calorie reduction life extension plans appear to leave their animal
subjects hungry 24/7 for their entire lives. An attempt to duplicate
most of the benefits in a human using low carb would mean not being
hungry and would automatically include not eating to excess.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The original observation was with low calorie. Doing it low carb is the
refinement. It's been done to rats, worms, whatever. Not to humans.

It doesn't work with monkeys either.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Calorie reduction works for monkeys.
What I do not believe has been tried is changing the gram and calorie
counts in the food given to the monkey experimental subjects from
lowering all 3 macronutrients equally to lowering carbs dramatically
then only reducing fat and protein some.

Plus, low calory diets are also (usually) LOWER carb diets (by
definition).

Going to 20 for life might well extend life

If only via a reduction of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, heart attacks
strokes, and cancer, by reducing the risk markers for those diseases.

That too.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:40:32 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The original observation was with low calorie. Doing it low carb is the
refinement. It's been done to rats, worms, whatever. Not to humans.

It doesn't work with monkeys either.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Calorie reduction works for monkeys.

Calorie reduction doesn't work to extend life in monkeys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/sc...pagewanted=all

What I do not believe has been tried is changing the gram and calorie
counts in the food given to the monkey experimental subjects from
lowering all 3 macronutrients equally to lowering carbs dramatically
then only reducing fat and protein some.

Plus, low calory diets are also (usually) LOWER carb diets (by
definition).

Going to 20 for life might well extend life

If only via a reduction of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, heart attacks
strokes, and cancer, by reducing the risk markers for those diseases.

That too.

It's enough for me!

And eliminating or drastically reducing the incidence of those
diseases would have a significant impact on average lifespans.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Could anybody post a link or a citation for "Very low carb depresses thyroid T3"?

I'd like to read up on this

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The original observation was with low calorie. Doing it low carb is the
refinement. It's been done to rats, worms, whatever. Not to humans.

It doesn't work with monkeys either.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Calorie reduction works for monkeys.

Calorie reduction doesn't work to extend life in monkeys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/sc...pagewanted=all

Thanks. So we know that low carb is beneficial compared to at least the
Standard American Diet and likely to an assortment of other plan types,
but we also know that low carb does not increase life expectancy in
monkeys. So far we don't yet know if low carb increase life span in
monkeys but the initial results suggest it doesn't.

A few years ago Discover magazine had an issue dedicated to longevity.
Several of the articles suggested that low thyroid levels were one
aspect of longevity. Comparing the thyroid levels of humans against
many other species should show that - It's more than 10-to-1
dogs-to-humans. Years ago I've read studies that show that both very
low calorie and very low carb diets reduce T3 output. Probably a reason
or the reason so many who extend Induction who also don't have 80+
pounds to lose stall when doing so. And probably a reason that those
few Inuits who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle on the ice
don't continue to lose.

Discussing this with folks on sci.life-extension there were claims that
reducing a specific amino acid does more than reducing carbs. I haven't
dug into the studies or data on that so I don't know how it works.
Looks like low protein, mildly low carb, high fat might work for
longevity. That's not inconsistant with the weight loss versions of low
carbing but it's different enough to expect that the main thing we're
importing to such a process would be lack of hunger.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Low carb induces the biochemical changes that come from a successful
predator diet.

Total non sequitir.

Says you. It's not my job to ensure you understand every statement.

It's true that ketosis from low carb is the sign of a successful
predator diet. Try checking the ketosis levels of a meat fed cat some
time. It's true that ketosis from fasting is the sign of starvation.
Try checking the ketosis levels of a fasting human some time. Which
better reflects what we actually eat? Which colors the perception in a
way that gets used against us?

Calling it a starvation respondse does not make sense
given what low carbers actually eat.

It's a standard buzzword sound-bite response that is used to dismiss the
benefits and validity of low carb eating.

You're way off base here; ketosis is an age old signal that the body is
burning it's stores,

Which is one of the goals when we low carb. A factor that has nothing
to do with eating so little we're starving. In fact it's in the design
of every well known low carb plan to ultilize this metabolic loophole to
burn stored fat without triggering starvation moded.

that's why metabolism rate adapts, to conserve them.

Stalls do in fact happen in a very large number of people who go too low
too long. In fact it's in the design of every well known low carb plan
to avoid such stalls.

Calorie reduction life extension plans appear to leave their animal
subjects hungry 24/7 for their entire lives. An attempt to duplicate
most of the benefits in a human using low carb would mean not being
hungry and would automatically include not eating to excess.

Non sequitir.

Says you. It's not my job to ensure you understand every statement.

It the longevity study on low calorie monkeys had worked I would have
said the next step was to do a low carb monkey study. Because low
carbing has us not hungry, so it might have monkeys not hungry and, so I
thought until the results of that study came out, have also resulted in
longevity benefits.

I'm not arguing in favor of life extension caloric restriction, I'm
saying that you can get the benefits of it with ketosis, but going low
carb is not enough; you also have to restrict calories to no more than
you will use. The excess raises mortality risks, like triglycerides,
for example.

Restricting low calorie to what you will use is called potion control.
While Dr A asserted that it happens automatically with every At-kid we
know he wasn't correct in that statement. Portion control becomes
possible for some, easy for many while low carbing. We do encounter
people who continue to over eat while low carbing. We call such people
ones who have not read the directions.

If you want to have a discussion, please limit your responses to what
I've actually stated, not some imaginary or straw man discussion.

And no ficts, just facts, please.

Back at you on that.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:53:53 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Years ago I've read studies that show that both very
low calorie and very low carb diets reduce T3 output.

In most cases, this is nothing to be concerned about.

http://aworldlymonk.wordpress.com/20...a-false-alarm/

"Other things equal, lower levels of dietary carbohydrate mean lower
levels of blood sugar. The simplest and most plausible explanation for
the lower levels of T3 that accompany low-carb diets is that the
amount of T3 required to perform all of its functions is now less."

Which also suggests that "treating to the number" is the wrong thing
to do. Doctors should treat to the patient, and then only if there
are obvious physical symptoms.

Decades of eating the Standard American Diet can play havoc with our
metabolisms. Transitioning to a low carb (or even a calory restricted
diet, as you mentioned above) way of eating requires less T3, so the
body adjusts.

The person who asked about T3 levels and low-carb diets should
elaborate further on why he's inquiring about this subject.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:26:29 -0500, Dogman
wrote:

[snip]

Not to mention that by
restricting carbs, it's pretty hard to "over consume" protein and fat.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I certainly don't know
anything about this stuff, but I'm having trouble
understanding that. Why would it be "hard" to over-consume
protein and fat?

--
croy

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:30:37 -0800, croy
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:26:29 -0500, Dogman
wrote:

[snip]

Not to mention that by
restricting carbs, it's pretty hard to "over consume" protein and fat.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I certainly don't know
anything about this stuff, but I'm having trouble
understanding that. Why would it be "hard" to over-consume
protein and fat?

Fat and protein are essentially low-glycemic foods. They don't spike
blood sugar levels, like carbs do. Most carbs (especially the refined
kind) are high glycemic foods. And fat (in particular) is very
filling, meaning you can go longer between meals (especially when
fat-adapted). Carbs (sugar) are addictive, causing over-eating
(over-consumption).

PS: It's okay to be "argumentative" here. It's a very argumentative
newsgroup.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

croy wrote:
Dogman wrote:

Not to mention that by
restricting carbs, it's pretty hard to "over consume" protein and fat.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I certainly don't know
anything about this stuff, but I'm having trouble
understanding that. Why would it be "hard" to over-consume
protein and fat?

Folks whose only previous experience is mixing carbs into protein and
fat often have a hard time believing it. Actually trying it becomes
very convincing. With low carb counts the body resists eating too much
fat or protein.

Before trying it physically try a hought experiment. Imagine mixing a
stick of butter with an equal calorie count of sugar and eating it.
This resembles a candy formula and some of us would have trouble
stopping once we started eating it. Imagine mixing a stick of butter
with an equal calorie count of more butter (two sticks). Now imagine
eating two sticks of butter in one sitting. Many folks can't imagine
managing to finish that much straight butter.

Now move on to a physical experiment. Start low carbing and be in
ketonuria. Count the calories you have for breakfast. Figure out how
much straight oil that many calories will be. Maybe between 1 and 2
shot glasses. Now commit to having that much straight oil as your
breakfast for a week. See what happens. I tried it once. The first
day I tossed off the just under 2 shots and I wasn't hungry for lunch.
The second day I was not comfortable having the second almost shot of
oil. The third day I had to sip the oil. The fourth day I had to hold
my nose to manage to swallow any of the oil. The fifth day I could not
even swallow the oil by holding my nose. My body refused to swallow it.

It's possible to over eat of fat and protein when low carbing but the
body does resist. Dr Atkins claimed that the body resisted at a level
that ensured loss. Experience of low carbers reports that it can be
easy to eat at a level that prevents loss it is indeed hard to eat at a
level that forces new fat into storage. Experience of low carbers
reports that many but not all find it easy to exercise portion control
once low carbing.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

In fact it's in the design
of every well known low carb plan to ultilize this metabolic loophole to
burn stored fat without triggering starvation moded.

Not relevent, once again. I KNOW why it happens, I'm a well read long
term very low carber. The discussion here is how it affects T3.

And you're one of the few who understand the T3 tie-in for why lower and
lower carb for longer and longer is not a good thing.

that's why metabolism rate adapts, to conserve them.

Stalls do in fact happen in a very large number of people who go too low
too long. In fact it's in the design of every well known low carb plan
to avoid such stalls.

Stalls actually happen in all diet methods, that's called a plateau. In
my case, permanent lowering of metabolism occurred after my T3 dropped
off the charts, after my first few days of induction levels during a
brief Atkins trial.

Exactly. Different people have different levels of T3 response but you
posted reports that T3 keeps dropping and dropping in low carbers over
time. You saw such rapid drop the regular two week Induction was too
much for you. Some others see stalls starting in two weeks as reported
in studies about "VLCD" (where the C means calories unfortunately) if
they stay on Induction. Others don't stall at 20 until they have under
some amount to lose. Others still make it all the way down to their
ideal weight at 20. Needless to say, those who make it all the way down
to their ideal weight at 20 assert it's the best way to go for everyone.
How would that work for you? Exactly.

So there are optimization strategies that work for the lucky ones, and
then there are optimization strategies that work fo rthe ones who aren't
that lucky. Stall avoidance matters.

... Because low
carbing has us not hungry, so it might have monkeys not hungry and, so I
thought until the results of that study came out, have also resulted in
longevity benefits.

Low carbing has some folks, most folks not hungry or less hungry. But
not all.

Correct. With low fat a large minority are never hungry but either a
majroty of large majority are constantly hungry. Doctor Atkins claimed
that no one is hungry while low carbing. He wasn't correct. I think a
higher pecentage of the population are not hungry while low carbing than
while low fatting but I am not aware of any study done to confirm that
opinion. I think it true but would need studies to be certain it's
true. I do know that some are constantly hungry while low carbing the
way I was constantly hungry while I was low fatting.

Those would be the folks with higher cortisol levels, which
can be caused, TAH DAH, by lower T3! Thyroid and cortisol act in
limiting ways on one another.

Before you mentioned cortisol I do not believe any major figure in the
low carb field addressed the topic with any significant effort.

One of the several arguments lodged against low carbing is that going
very low effects cortisol levels and that change in cortisol levels
causes irritability that drives people off low carbing. This argument
assumes that most low carbers go low enough and stay low enough long
enough to trigger cortisol level changes. In sert usual statement about
different people reacting differently here - You have a much stronger
reaction than most.

The problem with that argument is it boils down to most/all low carbers
staying at Induction levels. Which is yet another reason why I stress
that "following the directions" includes not digging for excuses to stay
on phase 1 of a 4 phase process.

No, I never read any diet doctor's directions before succesfully low
carbing, and Dr. Atkins were not the best ones out there when I did... I
read PubMed and created a diet from the information there, then read
some books. Only Protein Power proved fully accurate and useful. It
addressed the T3 issue, too, and the need to supplement some patients in
their practice when they went on low carb.

How did your thyroxine dosage change and how did that impact your
cortisol levels? When I started low carbing my dosage was not changed
but as it mentions in the Atkins book I entered a permanent stall 6
months after I switched from "stay near CCLL" to "dig for excuses to
stay lower". I did 6 months doing a lock step process to find my CCLL
and stick to it and during that 6 months I lost 40 pounds. Very fast
results. Then I spent 6 months at 30 because 30 is easy and I didn't
lose a pound. That's when I started going back through forum archives
finding dozens or hundreds who had stalled by staying at 20 and I
started studying T3 levels.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:00:33 -0500, Susan wrote:

[...]
I have never had appetite suppression by low carb. Lessening, perhaps,
but I am often hungry when I should not be.

This suggests that you're probably not eating enough FAT.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

... Because low
carbing has us not hungry, so it might have monkeys not hungry and, so I
thought until the results of that study came out, have also resulted in
longevity benefits.

I have never had appetite suppression by low carb. Lessening, perhaps,
but I am often hungry when I should not be.

That sucks. You're hungry when on low fat and hungry when on low carb.

I think a
higher pecentage of the population are not hungry while low carbing than
while low fatting but I am not aware of any study done to confirm that
opinion.

Seriously? You haven't seen those studies where low carbers were told
to eat until satisfied and low fatters stuck to low cal and lost half
the weight on 50% less calories? Start with the Schneider Peds study.

Those studies do not report who was hungry. They report who ate how
many calories and who lost how much.

I think it true but would need studies to be certain it's
true. I do know that some are constantly hungry while low carbing the
way I was constantly hungry while I was low fatting.

There have been studies, have you never sought them out?

Where are the studies that report on hunger levels? They are not the
studies were free eating low carbers lost at first better and and later
as well as calorie restricted low fatters.

Before you mentioned cortisol I do not believe any major figure in the
low carb field addressed the topic with any significant effort.

Nope, and certainly not Dr. Atkins. In fact, his suggestion of a fat
fast for resistant dieters would allow cortisol to rise even more due to
lowered insulin levels (high insulin levels lower adrenal steroid
synthesis and also CBG, the cortisol transport protein).

To me your interest in the topic of cortisol triggers a major advance in
the understanding of low carb metabolism. It added a deeper
understanding for me when I studied the topic.

One of the several arguments lodged against low carbing is that going
very low effects cortisol levels and that change in cortisol levels
causes irritability that drives people off low carbing.

I was a jittery, sleepless, anxious mess for three weeks, but I stuck
with it and adapted.

Yikes. When I went through my first Induction I was a jittery sleepless
mess for a couple of day then I adjusted.

The problem with that argument is it boils down to most/all low carbers
staying at Induction levels. Which is yet another reason why I stress
that "following the directions" includes not digging for excuses to stay
on phase 1 of a 4 phase process.

One doesn't need an excuse when Dr. Atkins said in his book that there's
nothing wrong with staying at induction levels if one is content and all
is going well. He was right. The "if" matters.

The "if" matters. It's also ignored by some here who deny that anyone
stalls starting about day 15 when they stay at 20. I've seen very many
people reporting that. It happens.

When I started low carbing my dosage was not changed
but as it mentions in the Atkins book I entered a permanent stall 6
months after I switched from "stay near CCLL" to "dig for excuses to
stay lower". I did 6 months doing a lock step process to find my CCLL
and stick to it and during that 6 months I lost 40 pounds. Very fast
results. Then I spent 6 months at 30 because 30 is easy and I didn't
lose a pound. That's when I started going back through forum archives
finding dozens or hundreds who had stalled by staying at 20 and I
started studying T3 levels.

Except for that month or two, I've never needed thyroid meds. Most
folks do much better on a natural thyroid meds or others with both T3
and T4...

I was put on generic for Synthroid around 10 years before I started low
carbing. It always worked well for me and there was no apparent change
in that when I started low carbing.

Thanks for the educational discussion! Always good to disagree with
you. It keeps my thinking sharp and my ideas evolving.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

croy wrote:
Dogman wrote:

Not to mention that by
restricting carbs, it's pretty hard to "over consume" protein and fat.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I certainly don't know
anything about this stuff, but I'm having trouble
understanding that. Why would it be "hard" to over-consume
protein and fat?

Folks whose only previous experience is mixing carbs into protein and
fat often have a hard time believing it. Actually trying it becomes
very convincing. With low carb counts the body resists eating too much
fat or protein.

Before trying it physically try a hought experiment. Imagine mixing a
stick of butter with an equal calorie count of sugar and eating it.
This resembles a candy formula and some of us would have trouble
stopping once we started eating it. Imagine mixing a stick of butter
with an equal calorie count of more butter (two sticks). Now imagine
eating two sticks of butter in one sitting. Many folks can't imagine
managing to finish that much straight butter.

Now move on to a physical experiment. Start low carbing and be in
ketonuria. Count the calories you have for breakfast. Figure out how
much straight oil that many calories will be. Maybe between 1 and 2
shot glasses. Now commit to having that much straight oil as your
breakfast for a week. See what happens. I tried it once. The first
day I tossed off the just under 2 shots and I wasn't hungry for lunch.
The second day I was not comfortable having the second almost shot of
oil. The third day I had to sip the oil. The fourth day I had to hold
my nose to manage to swallow any of the oil. The fifth day I could not
even swallow the oil by holding my nose. My body refused to swallow it.

It's possible to over eat of fat and protein when low carbing but the
body does resist. Dr Atkins claimed that the body resisted at a level
that ensured loss. Experience of low carbers reports that it can be
easy to eat at a level that prevents loss it is indeed hard to eat at a
level that forces new fat into storage. Experience of low carbers
reports that many but not all find it easy to exercise portion control
once low carbing.

One may also have to limit protein which can be converted to glycogen.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

Walter Bushell wrote:

One may also have to limit protein which can be converted to glycogen.

This is yet another reason that low carbing is low carb, medium protein,
high fat not low carb, medium fat, high protein. At least when
optimized for loss.

The body can't store much protein or is slow to store protein. it has
to grow new lean mass to store protein. So when we eat excess protein
grams, a tiny amount of it goes to growing new lean and the rest of the
excess is burned into glucose at very roughly 50% efficiency.

Let's say your protein minimum is 100 grams, however you calculated it.
Let's say you ate 150 grams of protein today. The best guess is those
extra 50 grams of protein count as if they were 25 grams of carb.

Reading food reports of a number of people it's been my impression that
folks tend to near protein grams near a specific level most days. Some
higher, sme lower but clustered around a number. So the carb
contribution from protein becomes a part of the background. It only
effects their carb counts when they want to work very hard to optimize
their results.

Protein over eating to the point of gain is not a frequent problem that
I can see. Protein over eating as a percentage compared to fat calories
seems common is newbies not so much among seasoned low carbers. I think
partially because we gradually lose fear of fat plus as we lose our
calorie quota goes gradually down and the way to reduce calories is by
reducing our intake. Counting carb grams seems to work better than
countng carb percentage. Counting protein grams seems to work better
than counting protein percentage. Both for most plan types anyways.
That leaves fat grams as what remains to reduce as we lose and need to
less.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Dec 11, 12:28*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

In fact it's in the design
of every well known low carb plan to ultilize this metabolic loophole to
burn stored fat without triggering starvation moded.

Not relevent, once again. I KNOW why it happens, I'm a well read long
term very low carber. *The discussion here is how it affects T3.

And you're one of the few who understand the T3 tie-in for why lower and
lower carb for longer and longer is not a good thing.

that's why metabolism rate adapts, to conserve them.

Stalls do in fact happen in a very large number of people who go too low
too long. *In fact it's in the design of every well known low carb plan
to avoid such stalls.

Stalls actually happen in all diet methods, that's called a plateau. In
my case, permanent lowering of metabolism occurred after my T3 dropped
off the charts, after my first few days of induction levels during a
brief Atkins trial.

Exactly. *Different people have different levels of T3 response but you
posted reports that T3 keeps dropping and dropping in low carbers over
time. *You saw such rapid drop the regular two week Induction was too
much for you. *Some others see stalls starting in two weeks as reported
in studies about "VLCD" (where the C means calories unfortunately) if
they stay on Induction. *Others don't stall at 20 until they have under
some amount to lose. *Others still make it all the way down to their
ideal weight at 20. *Needless to say, those who make it all the way down
to their ideal weight at 20 assert it's the best way to go for everyone.
How would that work for you? *Exactly.

So there are optimization strategies that work for the lucky ones, and
then there are optimization strategies that work fo rthe ones who aren't
that lucky. *Stall avoidance matters.

... Because low
carbing has us not hungry, so it might have monkeys not hungry and, so I
thought until the results of that study came out, have also resulted in
longevity benefits.

Low carbing has some folks, most folks not hungry or less hungry. *But
not all.

Correct. *With low fat a large minority are never hungry but either a
majroty of large majority are constantly hungry. *Doctor Atkins claimed
that no one is hungry while low carbing. *He wasn't correct. *I think a
higher pecentage of the population are not hungry while low carbing than
while low fatting but I am not aware of any study done to confirm that
opinion. *I think it true but would need studies to be certain it's
true. *I do know that some are constantly hungry while low carbing the
way I was constantly hungry while I was low fatting.

Those would be the folks with higher cortisol levels, which
can be caused, TAH DAH, by lower T3! *Thyroid and cortisol act in
limiting ways on one another.

Before you mentioned cortisol I do not believe any major figure in the
low carb field addressed the topic with any significant effort.

One of the several arguments lodged against low carbing is that going
very low effects cortisol levels and that change in cortisol levels
causes irritability that drives people off low carbing. *This argument
assumes that most low carbers go low enough and stay low enough long
enough to trigger cortisol level changes. *In sert usual statement about
different people reacting differently here - You have a much stronger
reaction than most.

The problem with that argument is it boils down to most/all low carbers
staying at Induction levels. *Which is yet another reason why I stress
that "following the directions" includes not digging for excuses to stay
on phase 1 of a 4 phase process.


There you go again. Misrepresenting Dr Atkins. The directions do
not say you must move on from induction after two weeks. Atkins
actually was very positive to the ideas.

You claimed a few posts ago
that stalls occur in large numbers of people who go too
low in carbs, too long. Study or reference please that it
happens to them significantly more than it happens to
someone at say 50g of carbs.
As Susan pointed out, stalls occur in people on all
kinds of diets, at various points in time. Most times
we don't know the reason why. It could be mostly due
to the body having some specific weight set points,
below which it is reluctant to go.

And again, I've given you the page references from Atkins
where his advice is directly opposite what you keep
claiming. For example, he posted a series of questions
that one should ask themselves BEFORE MOVING ON FROM INDUCTION. One
of those questions was if you
have a lot to lose. Mighty strange advice if Atkins believed
that you're not going to lose more weight, faster, at
induction level of carbs. I know, it's your personal
"observations", which you believe equal or trump Atkins. Personally,
I'll stick with Dr Atkins, who
had decades of experience with real patients.

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Dec 11, 3:00*pm, Susan wrote:


The problem with that argument is it boils down to most/all low carbers
staying at Induction levels. *Which is yet another reason why I stress
that "following the directions" includes not digging for excuses to stay
on phase 1 of a 4 phase process.

One doesn't need an excuse when Dr. Atkins said in his book that there's
nothing wrong with staying at induction levels if one is content and all
is going well. *He was right. *The "if" matters.


Thank you. Doug has been lying about this for years,
misrepresenting Atkins.
Like you, I can read what Atkins wrote. If Doug wants
to offer his alternative plan, I have no problem with it.
But I do have a problem when he continues to claim that
Atkins said you have to move up from induction, that you
shouldn't extend it. I also have a problem when he claims
that it's going to make you stall. Where is the study
that shows that? crickets.

Actually as you point out, Atkins was very positive towards
those that wanted to stay at induction levels longer. One of
the questions he posed for those considering whether to
stay in induction was whether they had a lot of weight to
lose. It would be mighty strange to encourage people who
have more weight to lose to stay at induction level if Atkins
knew they would lose more weight by going higher.

In my personal experience, I've always lost the most
weight when at or close to induction level. Now, who
should I believe? Atkins and my scale, or Doug?

Benefits of ketogenic diets
 

On Dec 11, 5:55*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Susan wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

... Because low
carbing has us not hungry, so it might have monkeys not hungry and, so I
thought until the results of that study came out, have also resulted in
longevity benefits.

I have never had appetite suppression by low carb. Lessening, perhaps,
but I am often hungry when I should not be.

That sucks. *You're hungry when on low fat and hungry when on low carb.

I think a
higher pecentage of the population are not hungry while low carbing than
while low fatting but I am not aware of any study done to confirm that
opinion.

Seriously? *You haven't seen those studies where low carbers were told
to eat until satisfied and low fatters stuck to low cal and lost half
the weight on 50% less calories? *Start with the Schneider Peds study..

Those studies do not report who was hungry. *They report who ate how
many calories and who lost how much.

I think it true but would need studies to be certain it's
true. *I do know that some are constantly hungry while low carbing the
way I was constantly hungry while I was low fatting.

There have been studies, have you never sought them out?

Where are the studies that report on hunger levels? *They are not the
studies were free eating low carbers lost at first better and and later
as well as calorie restricted low fatters.

Before you mentioned cortisol I do not believe any major figure in the
low carb field addressed the topic with any significant effort.

Nope, and certainly not Dr. Atkins. *In fact, his suggestion of a fat
fast for resistant dieters would allow cortisol to rise even more due to
lowered insulin levels (high insulin levels lower adrenal steroid
synthesis and also CBG, the cortisol transport protein).

To me your interest in the topic of cortisol triggers a major advance in
the understanding of low carb metabolism. *It added a deeper
understanding for me when I studied the topic.

One of the several arguments lodged against low carbing is that going
very low effects cortisol levels and that change in cortisol levels
causes irritability that drives people off low carbing.

I was a jittery, sleepless, anxious mess for three weeks, but I stuck
with it and adapted.

Yikes. *When I went through my first Induction I was a jittery sleepless
mess for a couple of day then I adjusted.

The problem with that argument is it boils down to most/all low carbers
staying at Induction levels. *Which is yet another reason why I stress
that "following the directions" includes not digging for excuses to stay
on phase 1 of a 4 phase process.

One doesn't need an excuse when Dr. Atkins said in his book that there's
nothing wrong with staying at induction levels if one is content and all
is going well. *He was right. *The "if" matters.

The "if" matters. *It's also ignored by some here who deny that anyone
stalls starting about day 15 when they stay at 20. *I've seen very many
people reporting that. *It happens.


You know, you and you're "reporting" are just amazing.
It's like you're running some real lab here and you have valid
results.
In actuality, the group here is pretty much dead. I don't
see people reporting, tabulating anything. All you're doing
is "seeing" what your eyes want to see, disregarding the rest
and then calling it established fact. At the same time,
you lie about what Atkins said.