How many carbs to un-keto-adapt?

[Hannibal]

that glucose consumption leads to faster fat metabolism?

Definitely. Adequate amounts of carbs - I mean.
I've just consulted with the person who is very good in biochemistry.

[riy freeman]

Ok, so would you elaborate? 
But I'm not sure how the discussion has evolved to this. I thought the purpose of this thread was asking how to halt ketosis via glucose consumption.

Btw, I'm not convinced ZC would be best for athletic performance.

[Hannibal]

Ok, so would you elaborate? 

I will try, but some other time.

[mrz]

if u do any sort of workout plz include some carbs or u'll lose all that muscle fast.. happened to me anyways..

[miles]

Is it correct to say that once fat-adapted, muscle protein for gluconeogenesis is rarely used?

No, it's always being used if you don't consume carbohydrates, just the better keto-adapted you are, the less generally needs to occur. The gluconeogenesis and the ketogenesis happen together.

[mrz]

i think the whole concept of keto gets blown out of proportion.. your body uses whatever you feed it, simple..

I see people on keto forums likE OMG! i just had 0.001 ounce of sugar, am i out of keto??? jeez..

I eat like 400 calories from carbs, and maybe 2000 from fat, and another 1000 from protein, and if my BODY only burned fat when i was in keto, then id be either dead right now(since my body can only use the carbs/protein right)? or id be super fat from my body storing all that fat..


bottom line is your body eats what u feed it, i dont buy into that out of keto/into keto.. if u eat 100g of carbs for the day, and 500g of fat, your body will USE that 500g of fat for energy, plain and simple..

If however, you eat 1000g of carbs, and 1000g of fat, then i can see your body burning thru the carbs and storing the fat for later... but as long as you dont meet your requirements with carbs alone, your body will be in some state of fat burning mode for calories..

[miles]

i think the whole concept of keto gets blown out of proportion.. your body uses whatever you feed it, simple..

I see people on keto forums likE OMG! i just had 0.001 ounce of sugar, am i out of keto??? jeez..

I eat like 400 calories from carbs, and maybe 2000 from fat, and another 1000 from protein, and if my BODY only burned fat when i was in keto, then id be either dead right now(since my body can only use the carbs/protein right)? or id be super fat from my body storing all that fat..


bottom line is your body eats what u feed it, i dont buy into that out of keto/into keto.. if u eat 100g of carbs for the day, and 500g of fat, your body will USE that 500g of fat for energy, plain and simple..

If however, you eat 1000g of carbs, and 1000g of fat, then i can see your body burning thru the carbs and storing the fat for later... but as long as you dont meet your requirements with carbs alone, your body will be in some state of fat burning mode for calories..

500g of fat is 5,000 Calories.

400g carbs is over 2.5-3kg of sweet potato, or 2,000 Calories.

If you eat 100g of carbs(>500g sweet potato)/500Calories, you will first run solely from those 100g carbs, and won't use any protein or fat for energy. After you've used them up, then you will switch to using protein and fat.

[mrz]

i know my math is wrong miles, but u get what i was saying? basically im saying right now im eating 500 calories from carbs a day.. the rest fat/protein.. according to the keto fan boys i am DEF not in keto, but tell that to my body using fat for energy.. im still alive, and im not gaining fat..

[Hannibal]

@mrz
The amount of carbs that you eat fuel erythrocytes, some part of your brain, the other cells without mitochondria + high-intensity exercises. For those exercises the muscle glycogen is used; for the cells - liver glycogen.
And you have definitely got a ketonemia - lots of ketones are present in your blood and probably nothing is excreted in the urine.
Your main source is FAT, as it should be.

[KD]

i know my math is wrong miles, but u get what i was saying? basically im saying right now im eating 500 calories from carbs a day.. the rest fat/protein.. according to the keto fan boys i am DEF not in keto, but tell that to my body using fat for energy.. im still alive, and im not gaining fat..

not trying to rag on your diet - which from the other thread sounds like a sensible solution - but you are missing the point. If people can prove in fact that it is not 'keto' chemically, then your process is both inefficient in burning the fats for energy, and simultaneously low in total carbs for fueling X amounts of activity. It might not be a life or death thing, or counteract most of the advantages in regard to energy freed up being mostly raw. At the same time it is still important to establish a clear definition, but yeah, perhaps not sweat the 0.001 ounces.

There probably are not many people here that this is a life or death issue, but for some percentage, it could theoretically be crucial - for health. For me personally, if I am not burning fats most efficiently for energy, yeah it makes way more sense to go to plant carbs for fueling workouts, but not prior. Why would I do something that might jeopardize my ability to get the most out of 2000 calories from fat or whatever by eating a few extra carbs in the effort to have more energy? If people can actually PROVE that it doesn't efect the process negatively AT ALL - eating that many carbs- then that is a different story. Just speaking in terms of energy only here - not nutrients- and not putting on weight, which probably will require some carbs, unless like some longer term folks point out - it takes a very long time to start turning excess fat and protein calories to lean mass and probably won't happen in short term experimentation.

(not this this validates pushing into long term experimentation).

I'd say as a general rule, common sense says if you need carbs regularly for energy after just a few days without them (short  enough that it can not possibly be deficiency) the odds of actually being efficient in regards to using fats for energy are slim.

[sabertooth]

I have been 11 months into a diet that is an average of 30 carbs a day and never more than 50, so far I initially gained weight but now I am a steady 170. I seem to have all the energy I need, I don't feel good if I eat extra carbs,

If I don't have any I will get more fatigued and have never gone more than a couple of days without any carbs. I crave carbs but haven't found any that suit me other than coconut and lemon water. I had blood sugar issues that have been completely resolved on this diet. I am happy with staying low carb, but am still worried about long term issues.

 Are there any people who have sustained very low carb paleo diets. I have always had the mind set that ZC could be maintained long enough for the body to heal and then there could be a gradual return to a more carb rich diet. But so far I am not sure about exactly how to. Now I am running more on instinct which says keep the carbs in the current range.

[TylerDurden]

I was very low carb for a very long time, years ago. I didn't suffer from it as such, I simply found that I didn't do very well in sports as a result. Weightlifting was  a disaster for me on RVLC or RZC and I found that I had no stamina whatsoever with things like mountain-hiking with a backpack.

[Hannibal]

I have been 11 months into a diet that is an average of 30 carbs a day and never more than 50, so far I initially gained weight but now I am a steady 170. I seem to have all the energy I need, I don't feel good if I eat extra carbs ,(...)
I had blood sugar issues

Maybe you have been borderline diabetic, so that 30 g of carbs could have been quite a good amount. Bernstein advocates it.

Now I am running more on instinct which says keep the carbs in the current range.  

And what your instict says about protein and fat?

  but am still worried about long term issues.

Good.
There have been quite a lot of Polish people who have followed strict "Optimal Diet" and after several years, sometimes even 10, they have been struck by severe problems. But for the first years they have felt like in heaven, supposedly 

[TylerDurden]

Good.
There have been quite a lot of Polish people who have followed strict "Optimal Diet" and after several years, sometimes even 10, they have been struck by severe problems. But for the first years they have felt like in heaven, supposedly 

  I don't think that the example of the Optimal Diet gives any serious backing to the notion that RZC or RVLC is unhealthy. The Optimal Diet is a revolting one in which the vast majority of foods in it are cooked(I believe the guru is a real fan of thorough cooking) and it contains vast amounts of things like pasteurised dairy(which is a real problem food). I don't think it even recommends grassfed meats but mainly very fatty grainfed meat instead, as the diet primarily focuses on cooked animal fats in a very big way.

[Hannibal]

I don't think that the example of the Optimal Diet gives any serious backing to the notion that RZC or RVLC is unhealthy.

I give that example ONLY to show that people can feel great on their diet for several years and then "collapse".
I referred to that "long-term issue".

The Optimal Diet is a revolting one in which the vast majority of foods in it are cooked(I believe the guru is a real fan of thorough cooking) and it contains vast amounts of things like pasteurised dairy(which is a real problem food). I don't think it even recommends grassfed meats but mainly very fatty grainfed meat instead, as the diet primarily focuses on cooked animal fats in a very big way.

Yeah, that's true.
And there is usually to little of carbs + protein, and too much fat.
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=1077

[riy freeman]

"I give that example ONLY to show that people can feel great on their diet for several years and then "collapse".

If you argue that then that gives no footing for anecdotal experience... which is what most people rely on on this forum...

[Hannibal]

If you argue that then that gives no footing for anecdotal experience...

What I'm trying to suggest is that we should be cautious. That's it.

[TrueCarnivore]

No, it's always being used if you don't consume carbohydrates, just the better keto-adapted you are, the less generally needs to occur. The gluconeogenesis and the ketogenesis happen together.

Hmm, okay, good to know. It's getting to the point now that I don't even notice I'm without carbs, so I think my efficiency continues to rise. I'm trying to experiment with increasing mitochondria fat efficiency/number with hard anaerobic and aerobic conditioning. Also with not quenching oxidation at all with any vitamin C, E, or plant phytonutrients. My reasoning is going off the nobel deserving experiment with worms that were genetically engineered to live 5 times longer in accordance with what zero glucose would cause. In the test, once they were given glucose, all those gains were lost. Along with that, there is a related study similar in structure where they gave them vitamin C, and E and their lifespans were cut short as well. The antioxidant factor stopped the body from upping its own natural antioxidants. I also remember reading that without quenching the oxidation, muscle cells are created better, mitochondria act advantageously and so on.

I'm using hard resistance(as high as the cycles can go) and doing 30 second intervals with 1:30 minute rest with ZC. Experimenting with HGH, endurance, lactic acid thresholds... whatever I can get out of it, really. I'm also going with heavy deadlifts and what not, but those don't go as far as a sprint in intensity. The oxygen debt created, more or less.

My idea is that during our evolution, times without food, plus high levels of activity caused us to be completely fat-adapted. We have years of catching up to do mitochondria wise, so this is my attempt to delve into this area and see what kind of results I get.

Any thoughts?

[TrueCarnivore]

If fat loss is the sole focus then I'm inclined to say yes on a theoretical basis. But like most of the processes total protein (and fat) consumption would have to factor in as well. But also an argument could be made that carbs could provide immediate fuel for high intense activity and therefore raise metabolic rates way higher so your net productive activity could result in more fat being burned. In other words you might feel more strength/power to do whatever exercise for a net burning of more fuel. I'm also still learning about these things so don't take my word as a final say."

No way glycerol would be enough to supply the body with all of the glucose needs. The glucose in this case would presumably come from amino acids (protein component of ZC diet). The fat-adapted state is muscle sparing but without adequate protein intake I would still say its still a net loss of muscle.
Once fat-adapted the process of gluconeogenesis HAS to occur still because you will be converting amino acids to glucose. I think the bottom line is if you have adequate protein intake so that your glucose lee\vels can be maintained AND the body has enough protein to maintain muscle. In fasting, there is no protein (or carb/fat) intake so during ketosis the body fat gets "converted" to oxaloacetate and thus travel up the path of gluconeogenesis to make glucose. The body muscle is spared once again as much as possible.

I see exactly what you're saying. I've been experimenting with using whey an hour before workout to use the free glucose for intensity. I did this twice, but won't be continuing. It did up my ability to maintain intensity, but I felt it made it easier on my body resulting in less adaptation on a cellular level. Hard to explain, but that is how it felt. In my case, I would rather have all my activity come from fat throughout the day and coming days in response to my activity. Prolonging the recovery and whatever advantages that can provide.
 

Protein intake does have to be a tad bit higher on a fat-adapted diet, doesn't it. And I do notice what hannibal mentioned earlier in this thread about using BCAAs past a certain lactic threshold. I'm wondering if this could be a beneficial factor in the long-run. Causing higher amounts of damage, and resulting in more repairs having to be made as opposed to glucose loaded. I'm not sure if it's related to this, but I feel that my muscle comes in tighter, and more dense on this diet. It could be from fasting and accumulating damage, and then repairing it in a nightly mini-bulk resulting in unstretched muscle coming in. My inclination is that muscle maturity could be reached faster on a fat-adapted diet because of the ease in which damage is caused. Muscle maturity basically being volume and quality of damage acculumated to be later repaired and made stronger over time.

I've found that making it harder on the body only results in the best adaptations. Given proper protein, fats, and calories are consumed in the end.

[Louna]

      Who's the guy on the other forum whose kids only eat fatty pemmican?      

Can't remember his name but here are his children : http://www.youtube.com/user/chachajoe8#p/u

[sabertooth]

I seem to be well fitted to a very low carb diet that enables me to work steadily for hours on end without fatigue. Although I haven't tried to test the limit to my stamina anytime recently, I don't think its necessary in my case because I do so much physical labor. Perhaps for some low carb people who are more sedentary it may be necessary to load up on carbs and do strenuous workouts to stay in shape, or for people who wish to gain bulk to do carb cycling, but I am happy and stable at about 165 pounds, and feel about as strong as I need to be without any want to experiment with carbs.

Its seems that too many carbs interfere with my ability to optimally digest fats and proteins.

Something phenomenal has happend me on this low carb diet. I seem to be able to regulate the amount of fat and protein I eat by some newly discovered instinct. I will vary my fat amounts from 80% of total caloric intake to 60% based on what I crave. I will very often set out a meal that is about 80% fat calories and about half way into it I will suddenly need more protein, so I will leave the remainding fat trimmings and cut up some more muscle meat and eat until I have reached the right balance: or If I bolt down to much fat in a meal I will get a craving for more muscle meat after a meal and cut up some more lean meat as a snack to balance out ft to protein as my cravings demand.

Before this diet I never experienced anything like this, I would make a plate of food and eat it , and had to suffer the ill effects without any way of knowing what to avoid and what to continue eating. Now I have some inner voice telling me what to eat and how much, it seems almost unreal how much things have improved over the last year.

[Ioanna]

Hmm, okay, good to know. It's getting to the point now that I don't even notice I'm without carbs, so I think my efficiency continues to rise. I'm trying to experiment with increasing mitochondria fat efficiency/number with hard anaerobic and aerobic conditioning. Also with not quenching oxidation at all with any vitamin C, E, or plant phytonutrients. My reasoning is going off the nobel deserving experiment with worms that were genetically engineered to live 5 times longer in accordance with what zero glucose would cause. In the test, once they were given glucose, all those gains were lost. Along with that, there is a related study similar in structure where they gave them vitamin C, and E and their lifespans were cut short as well. The antioxidant factor stopped the body from upping its own natural antioxidants. I also remember reading that without quenching the oxidation, muscle cells are created better, mitochondria act advantageously and so on.

links to these studies?

[KD]

I seem to be well fitted to a very low carb diet that enables me to work steadily for hours on end without fatigue. Although I haven't tried to test the limit to my stamina anytime recently, I don't think its necessary in my case because I do so much physical labor.

sure, well we'll find out when square up in the very low-carb raw meat cage match.
winner takes home a sheep

hehe...good to hear your progress as always.

---


I for one..still have no answer to the original question.

I ate 3: 4x4x1 inch honeycombs and some pineapple and some alcohol   in a 2 week period, and havn't noticed much of anything drastic with energy, and just a few negative issues otherwise that show some positive improvements in that regard to other sugar related stuff. I did have shifts in FBG which i'm now at this moment investigating on http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%281%29 as this shift I guess is very typical.

I'm still in the midst of getting back on my normal routine though..so its hard to tell, but so far there doesn't seem to be issues. It seems to me the hardest part must be the initial switch over to burning fats for fuel, and once that is in place and one hasn't totally re-adapted to carbs..it shouldn't be very long to 'recover',..but who knows.

[sabertooth]

I checked out the link and it does kind of worry me about the long term issue of insulin resistance, I have read about a few zcer who become insulin resistance and after a few years they develop elevated glucose, although I am not sure if they are 100% raw as I am. I had someother type of sugar issue that wasn't insulin resistance, It was almost as if the fungal infection damaged my pancrease and I could produce enough insulin to bring my blood sugars below 100. I would often eat very little for dinner and go to bed at 100 and then a full 12 hour after eatting my last meal my sugar would spike up 15 points or so while I was sleeping, I think my liver was damaged and would make to much glucose, perhaps these issues resulted in me being able to thrive off of zero carb. Because my cells were already accustom to lower than normal insulin levels and my liver seems to produce a large amount of glucose I had a a much easier time adapting to zc than the average person. I am now committed to this way of life so I wish to know if there are long term issues I should be aware of regarding insulin resistance. Even if there are such issues I don't think it would change much, because before this diet my sugars would spike to the upper one hundreds and would not come down for hours, so even if after five years I shift from an average of about 85 to 100 I would still be better off than I was before. I would still like to avoid such from happening because I am real sensitive to extra glucose and even a blood sugar reading of 100 makes me feel lousy

 Are there any long term Raw low carbers who have been ketogenic for a few years that give some advice about what may work to avoid insulin resistance, or offer possible theory's as to why it happens. I was thinking that after a few years of loading the body up with saturated fats and maintaining low carbs that the cell walls may become less able to receive insulin somehow