Ketogenic Diet - Powerful Dietary Strategy for Certain Conditions

Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Angela said:
I am also taking magnesium, potassium, and omega 3 and cod liver oil. I do have one question, should I be taking vitamin C every day?

There are a few posts in the LWB thread that discuss the vitamin C issue and how the heck it could have been adaptive for humans to lose the ability to synthesize it in their bodies. Apparently, there is a different system in humans, but it ONLY works when on a high fat/protein low carb diet. So, after awhile of adjusting, you get to where you don't really need to take vitamin C because your body is doing something else. See if you can find the posts. Maybe we should copy them to the Vitamin C thread, too?

In any event, I don't take it now except once in awhile if I'm feeling a bit under the weather which means not often.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Thank you for answering the question about vitamin C needs. It was one that I was going to ask too, if nothing turned up while I was reading here. I have not penetrated very far into the LWB thread yet so had not seen the discussion you mention. I did not see it brought up in the "Ascorbic acid(vitamin C)" thread so perhaps it would be more generally helpful to people if it could be referenced there too. I was vegetarian for quite a long time and I remember that the published information that humans could not synthesize VitC in their bodies was one of the major arguments I used to convince myself vegetarianism was a good choice.

I thought it might help if I could be more proactive and find the posts myself...
Searching for "ascorbic acid" in the LWB thread. I could only find one relevant reference.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22916.msg302670/topicseen.html#msg302670. It is from from psyche. The import is that Uric Acid replaces the functions of vitamin C when you are in ketosis.

Searching for "vitamin c" nothing else relevant jumped out. Thinking to extend the search to "uric acid" only seemed to find posts discussing the problems with a build up of uric acid. So unfortunately I have not been much help and must learn to be more skillful with the search function. If someone knows where there is any further discussion on the forum about vitamin C synthesis or the alternative I would still like to read it.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Just checking in on day five to reports some other changes:

Less water consumption and loss. I am drinking about half the amount of liquid a day with no signs of dehydration (headaches/ thirst). I guess this is because my cells have greater protection against water loss and because sugar/ carb metabolism requires huge amounts of water.

I feel really energetic and alert in the mornings - I jump out of bed at 6am whereas I would be very reluctant in the past. I buzz around feeding all the animals and making breakfast and feel very upbeat and ready for the day ahead.

I have also been alcohol free for about a month now due to my increased sensitivity to the unpleasant effects. It wasn't hard for me because I'm only a moderate drinker anyway (a couple of drinks at the weekend). I don't miss it and don't plan to start drinking again.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Psyche said:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/947.short said:
Metabolic response to lactitol and xylitol in healthy men.
Sugar alcohols are used in food products, yet their metabolic effects in humans are poorly known. We examined plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide responses and changes in carbohydrate and lipid oxidation after the ingestion of 25 g lactitol, xylitol, or glucose. Eight healthy, nonobese men were studied after an overnight fast. After the ingestion of lactitol or xylitol, the rise in plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentrations was less than after the ingestion of glucose (P < 0.02), with no difference between the two polyols.

From this information, I understand that xylitol does raise glucose and thus, insulin. We'll have to see more papers on stevia, but from the one I quoted, it appears that stevia raised insulin proportionally to the dietary sugar that was consumed. That is why stevia is better than drugs. Drugs will just stimulate insulin and cause you to have an hypoglycemia if there is no sugar on the blood. I wonder if it is possible for stevia to not raise insulin if there is no sugar in the diet.

I was giving this a bit more thought, and I'm a bit confused now. Is there anything in these studies that compare the effects of xylitol with the consumption of carbs, as you mentioned for stevia? I mean, maybe the same applies to xylitol as to stevia, whether people consume carbs or not while using these sweeteners? I guess that the answer is that that's not entirely the case, because xylitol does contain carbs (even though the difference with sugar is huge and it metabolizes slowly).

So, a person who is extremely sensitive to carbs would feel a bigger side effect from xylitol (and more of a fight going on in the gut, due to the fact that xylitol is anti-bacterial while stevia isn't)? And a person who is more sensitive to the carb cravings (the "pleasure" aspect) would be more sensitive to stevia because stevia tastes sweeter? I don't know, to me it tastes almost like aspartame, so sweet it is. And it leaves a "chemical" taste in my mouth.

Also, I imagine that, although both come from plants, stevia contains more lectins. I could be off, but it seems natural to me to think that there are more lectins in fruit, seeds and leaves (stevia) than there would be in a tree bark(xylitol). So, if that were the case, those who are more sensitive to lectins would have more side effects from stevia than fro xylitol. I remember getting bone pains when I was having stevia, but I haven't tried it since we went keto. Anyway, I don't know whether the processing of both sweeteners kills the lectins. Maybe a good experiment would be to try the stevia leaves, and compare the effects to the processed product? And the same between pure birch syrup and xylitol? I don't think there could be any lectins left in a sugar alcohol (xylitol), but not sure about stevia.

I don't know. I mean, maybe it's just a case by case thing. FWIW.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

I think there are a number of issues. It appears that stevia has more "sweetness" with no stimulation of insulin as long as there is no concommitant carb consumption. In other words, it is the carb consumption that triggers the insulin so they should have just left stevia out of that entire equation.

But, for some people, there is the taste factor and a hypersensitivity to lectins. Maybe they even go together genetically? If it tastes nasty to you, maybe you are more sensitive overall?

On the other side, there is the carb factor in xylitol. It is NOT carb free. It has about half the carbs of the same amount of pure sugar, but has a 25 to 1 ratio on the glycemic index: it is metabolized differently than sugar, and more slowly. So, even in a larger amount, you probably wouldn't have much of an insulin spike.

ALSO, there is the anti-bacterial property of xylitol (for the birch variety, I'm sure, not sure about the corn derived variety) which makes it problematical for anyone who still harbors a lot of fiber digesting bacteria in their gut. But it seems that, after a certain period on the ketogenic diet, where fiber is absent entirely, that issue might diminish or is entirely absent.

So xylitol might actually be more problematical for people continuing to have any significant amount of carbs, but more especially, fiber-rich foods. It doesn't look like there is any such problem with stevia.

The "negatives" for xylitol are: it does have carbs, it is anti-bacterial and can cause abdominal distress: Only use it sparingly if you are eating super low/no residue. Also, those who are extremely carb sensitive should avoid it.

The negatives for stevia are taste and lectins to which some people are extremely sensitive.

One thing we read recently that may be connected was a study about women in genetic lines where some of the males in that line are color blind ... {pause... searching...} Found it:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

The Humans With Super Human Vision

An unknown number of women may perceive 
millions of colors invisible to the rest of us. One British scientist is trying to track them down and understand their extraordinary power of sight.
by Veronique Greenwood

From the July-August special issue; published online June 18, 2012

An average human, utterly unremarkable in every way, can 
perceive a million different colors. Vermilion, puce, cerulean, periwinkle, chartreuse—we have thousands of words for them, but mere language can never capture our extraordinary range of hues. Our powers of color vision derive from cells in our eyes called cones, three types in all, each triggered by different wavelengths of light. Every moment our eyes are open, those three flavors of cone fire off messages to the brain. The brain then combines the signals to produce the sensation we call color.

Vision is complex, but the calculus of color is strangely simple: Each cone confers the ability to distinguish around a hundred shades, so the total number of combinations is at least 1003, or a million. Take one cone away—go from being what scientists call a trichromat to a dichromat—and the number of possible combinations drops a factor of 100, to 10,000. Almost all other mammals, including dogs and New World monkeys, are dichromats. The richness of the world we see is rivaled only by that of birds and some insects, which also perceive the ultraviolet part of the spectrum.

Researchers suspect, though, that some people see even more. Living among us are people with four cones, who might experience a range of colors invisible to the rest. It’s possible these so-called tetrachromats see a hundred million colors, with each familiar hue fracturing into a hundred more subtle shades for which there are no names, no paint swatches. And because perceiving color is a personal experience, they would have no way of knowing they see far beyond what we consider the limits of human vision.

Over the course of two decades, Newcastle University neuroscientist Gabriele Jordan and her colleagues have been searching for people endowed with this super-vision. Two years ago, Jordan finally found one. A doctor living in northern England, referred to only as cDa29 in the literature, is the first tetrachromat known to science. She is almost surely not the last.

The first hint that tetrachromats might exist came in a 1948 paper on color blindness. Dutch scientist HL de Vries was studying the eyes of color-blind men, who, along with two normal cones, possess a mutant cone that is less sensitive to either green or red, making it difficult for them to distinguish the two colors. He tested their vision by having them perform a basic matching task. Twiddling the dials on a lab instrument back and forth, the men had to mix red and green light so that the result, to their eyes, matched a standard shade of yellow. To compensate for their difficulty in discerning hues, color-blind men need to add more green or red than normal trichromats to make a match.

Out of curiosity, De Vries tested the daughters of one subject and observed that even though they were not color-blind—they seemed to distinguish red and green as well as anyone—they needed more red in their test light than normal people to make the match precise. If the women weren’t color-blind, what was going on?

Pondering the situation, De Vries thought he saw an explanation. Color blindness ran in families, affecting men but not women. While color-blind men had two normal cones and one mutant cone, De Vries knew that the mothers and daughters of color-blind men had the mutant cone and three normal cones—a total of four separate cones in their eyes. He suspected the extra cone could be why the women perceived color differently—not because they saw less than most people but because they saw more. He speculated that such women might be using the fourth cone to distinguish more colors than a trichromat, but he buried this insight on the last page of the paper. De Vries never wrote about four-coned women again.

In the 1980s neuroscientist John Mollon of Cambridge University, then Jordan’s adviser there, was studying color vision in monkeys and became interested in De Vries’s note on tetrachromacy. Mollon and Jordan realized that since color blindness is common, four-coned women must be as well. Jordan estimates they make up as many as 12 percent of women. To find if tetrachromats were hidden in this group, the researchers sought out the mothers of color-blind sons and had them take matching tests similar to the one used by De Vries, but with a twist. If they were true tetrachromats, they would never be able to make a satisfactory match, because they would be able to sense color gradations beyond those available on the test.

No luck: Mollon and Jordan found that women with four cones could consistently make a match on the tests. Jordan began to have doubts. Perhaps the fourth cone was not active. Perhaps super-vision was not real. In 2007 Jordan, now at Newcastle, returned to testing using a new method. Sitting in a dark room, peering into a lab device, women saw three colored circles flash before their eyes. To a trichromat, they all looked the same. To a tetrachromat, though, one would stand out. That circle was not a pure color but a subtle mixture of red and green light randomly generated by a computer. Only a tetrachromat would be able to perceive the difference, thanks to the extra shades made visible by her fourth cone.

Jordan gave the test to 25 women who all had a fourth cone. One woman, code named cDa29, got every single question correct. “I was jumping up and down,” Jordan says. She had finally found her tetrachromat.

What would it be like to see through cDa29’s eyes? Unfortunately, she cannot describe how her color vision compares with ours, any more than we can describe to a dichromatic person what red looks like. “This private perception is what everybody is curious about,” Jordan says. “I would love to see that.” Jordan’s next challenge is discovering why cDa29 is different from the other women she tested. “We now know tetrachromacy exists,” Jordan says. “But we don’t know what allows someone to become functionally tetrachromatic, when most four-coned women aren’t.” Jay Neitz, a vision researcher at the University of Washington, thinks that potential tetrachromats may need practice to awaken their abilities. “Most of the things that we see as colored are manufactured by people who are trying to make colors that work for trichromats,” he says. “It could be that our whole world is tuned to the world of the trichromat.” He also suspects the natural world may not have enough variation in color for the brain to learn to use a fourth cone. Tetrachromats might never need to draw on their full capacity. They may be trapped in a world tailored to creatures with lesser powers. Perhaps if these women regularly visited a lab where they had to learn—really learn—to tell extremely subtle shades apart, they would awaken in themselves the latent abilities of their fourth cone. Then they could begin to see things they had never tried to see before, a kaleidoscope of colors beyond our imagining.

Now, the reason I bring this up is that we noticed that those of us here in the house who seemed to have the ability to name way more colors also seemed to be way sensitive to stevia. How do you test such a thing? Well, obviously, it is subjective to a great extent, but it was actually because some of us can look at two colors side by side and say they are NOT the same while another can look at them and say that they are the same. Then, we you do a color break-down on the computer, you find that the one that can see a difference is right: there are very subtle differences which the computer can identify by pixel counts/chromatic things. And yes, those of us who seem to have this ability have male relatives who are color blind.

So, anyway, there we were talking about this ability to see more colors, very subtle gradations, in fact, along with the hypersensitivity to certain kinds of tastes. That reminded us of something that we read in one of the many diet books we've reviewed about "supertasters". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster

A supertaster is a person who experiences the sense of taste with far greater intensity than average. Women are more likely to be supertasters, as are individuals of Asian, African and South American descent. The cause of this heightened response is currently unknown, although it is thought to be, at least in part, due to an increased number of fungiform papillae.The evolutionary advantage to supertasting is unclear. In some environments, heightened taste response, particularly to bitterness, would represent an important advantage in avoiding potentially toxic plant alkaloids. However, in other environments, increased response to bitterness may have limited the range of palatable foods. In a modern, energy-rich environment, supertasting may be cardioprotective, due to decreased liking and intake of fat. It may be a cause of picky eating, but picky eaters are not necessarily supertasters, and vice versa.

That last bit about disliking fat per se is BS though certainly, I can taste differences in fat and meat and don't like to eat it if it tastes "wrong". Some of us here seem to be able to taste those differences, some of us do not.

Anyway, just thinking that genetics makes all the difference.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Laura said:
Anyway, just thinking that genetics makes all the difference.
I'm wondering if as we continue along on this diet and more dna gets switched on if more people will begin to notice the same or similar effects.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

panca kanga said:
...I thought it might help if I could be more proactive and find the posts myself...
Searching for "ascorbic acid" in the LWB thread. I could only find one relevant reference.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22916.msg302670/topicseen.html#msg302670. It is from from psyche. The import is that Uric Acid replaces the functions of vitamin C when you are in ketosis.

Searching for "vitamin c" nothing else relevant jumped out. Thinking to extend the search to "uric acid" only seemed to find posts discussing the problems with a build up of uric acid. So unfortunately I have not been much help and must learn to be more skillful with the search function. If someone knows where there is any further discussion on the forum about vitamin C synthesis or the alternative I would still like to read it.

Thanks-- I think you found it. Uric acid is a human vitamin C "alternative." There may be additional discussion in other places, but I don't think there was really a lot more to say about it.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

I've been trying to find some accurate info on how the number of carbs in xylitol is calculated. A teaspoon of xylitol is 4 grams (all of which are counted on nutritional charts as 4 grams of carbs). One teaspoon of sugar also has 4 grams of carbs. However, there's this:

_http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/net-carbs.htm

Sugar alcohols are structurally similar to their carbohydrate cousins but have an increased number of hydrogen atoms, which, in chemical terms, renders them "hydrogenated" or "reduced"; as a result, they are processed somewhat differently by the body.

The above links to a paper, published in 2002 (http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2002/pdf/7407x1253.pdf), where the authors write:

As mentioned above, the available energy from nondigestible sugar substitutes cannot be estimated by currently used methods for common foods. Therefore, I would like to introduce method (1), which evaluates the available energy of nondigestible and/or nonabsorbable sugar substitutes according to several fermentation equations proposed previously [8–11].

...

A sugar substitute that is not digested and absorbed in the small intestine reaches the large intestine, where it is completely fermented by intestinal bacteria and produces short-chain fatty acids, which are converted to energy. The available energy of a nondigestible sugar substitute, which is completely fermented by intestinal microbes, is estimated as approximately 2 kcal/g.

...

I would like to propose that the available energy of nondigestible sugar substitutes, which escape digestion and absorption in the small intestine and are completely fermented by intestinal bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, is 2 kcal/g as energy coefficient. This value is approximately 50% of the value of sucrose. I think that this value, 2 kcal/g, is practical and sufficient for nutrition education. This value has been used already to evaluate the energy of processed foods in the Nutrition Improvement ACT in Japan [18].

Sugar gives 4 kcal/g for a total of 16 kcal per teaspoon. But xylitol gives approximately 2.4 kcal/g, for a total of about 9 kcal per teaspoon (_http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Sugar_Alcohols_Fact_Sheet). The paper above found its available energy to be from 2.5-3.4 kcal/g (10-13.6 kcal per teaspoon), averaged to 3 kcal/g (12 kcal per teaspoon). It also says:

Xylitol and sorbitol are partially absorbed from the small intestine and metabolized in the body.
Thus, the available energy is 3 kcal/g.

Unfortunately, it doesn't break down how much is from fermentation in the large intestine (short-chain fatty acids) vs. digestion in the small intestine.

I've read in some forums (with no citations) to count half of the carbs in xylitol. That might make sense: 2 grams broken down in the LI, to give 4 kcal; plus 2 grams in the SI, to give 8 kcal; total of 12 kcal (the approximate value given in the paper). Either way, unless I'm misunderstanding the stuff I've read, the actual carbs in xylitol should be less than 4/tsp. But unless any new papers have been published since 2002 that spell it all out, it's hard to know exactly how much.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

There were some interesting questions and answers in Jimmy Moore's final Ask the Low Carb Experts program of this year, with Peter Attia as guest, that involved whether we actually need to include plant foods in our diet, and how much vitamin C we actually require. It comes up somewhere around the 1 hour, 23 minute mark in the recording. I have to go in a minute, but I wanted to mention that he talked about how scurvy was a problem for sailors on a diet of "potatoeås and bread," and how when you are eating low carb the vitamin C requirement may go way down.

_http://www.askthelowcarbexperts.com/2012/10/33-dr-peter-attia-finding-the-diet-thats-right-for-you
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

panca kanga said:
I thought it might help if I could be more proactive and find the posts myself...
Searching for "ascorbic acid" in the LWB thread. I could only find one relevant reference.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22916.msg302670/topicseen.html#msg302670. It is from from psyche. The import is that Uric Acid replaces the functions of vitamin C when you are in ketosis.
I remember, yes, that is a synthesis. I'll see if I can find the discussion and put it on the vitamin C thread.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Laura said:
So, anyway, there we were talking about this ability to see more colors, very subtle gradations, in fact, along with the hypersensitivity to certain kinds of tastes. That reminded us of something that we read in one of the many diet books we've reviewed about "supertasters". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster

A supertaster is a person who experiences the sense of taste with far greater intensity than average. Women are more likely to be supertasters, as are individuals of Asian, African and South American descent. The cause of this heightened response is currently unknown, although it is thought to be, at least in part, due to an increased number of fungiform papillae.The evolutionary advantage to supertasting is unclear. In some environments, heightened taste response, particularly to bitterness, would represent an important advantage in avoiding potentially toxic plant alkaloids. However, in other environments, increased response to bitterness may have limited the range of palatable foods. In a modern, energy-rich environment, supertasting may be cardioprotective, due to decreased liking and intake of fat. It may be a cause of picky eating, but picky eaters are not necessarily supertasters, and vice versa.

That last bit about disliking fat per se is BS though certainly, I can taste differences in fat and meat and don't like to eat it if it tastes "wrong". Some of us here seem to be able to taste those differences, some of us do not.

Anyway, just thinking that genetics makes all the difference.

That is very interesting research! Supertasters are in a sense like the canaries in the mine.

It also brings to mind how taste changes with the diet and how carb eaters need so much stimulation in order to get satisfied. While on the keto diet, having naturally rich fat animal foods, everything tastes so good!

I would like to experiment not having any sweeteners at all to see if it makes a difference. I remember when I first tasted stevia, it tasted bad and I eventually got used to it and ended up liking it. Perhaps that is a bad sign.

If I remember correctly, stevia can't be sold as a sweetener in several countries because of its drug (and/or lectin) properties.

Approaching Infinity said:
I've been trying to find some accurate info on how the number of carbs in xylitol is calculated.

Perhaps it is really different for each individual according to their gut flora and its diet. Gut flora is very different in a person eating mostly carbs.

I've stumbled upon speculations (from the Perfect Diet blog) of how people on a keto diet have detrimental health effects because gut flora has no fiber to eat. I don't think that is true because the gut flora changes. But it makes me think if xylitol is more completely metabolized by gut flora in a person on a ketogenic diet?

Anway, I'm going the no sweetener way as an experiment. I think that the taste of any sweet flavor just makes things worse for me.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Psyche said:
...

I would like to experiment not having any sweeteners at all to see if it makes a difference. I remember when I first tasted stevia, it tasted bad and I eventually got used to it and ended up liking it. Perhaps that is a bad sign.

...

Anway, I'm going the no sweetener way as an experiment. I think that the taste of any sweet flavor just makes things worse for me.
Go for it, I dropped all forms of 'sugar sweeteners' (ignoring fruit and carbs, cakes and biscuits) - I suppose I'm saying in beverages of all descriptions, about 35 years ago, and once adapted, which didn't take long, I haven't looked back since. The taste of the beverage comes through completely. The tast buds are re-calibrated.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

I've experienced the same as you Prodigal Son. I've never had a huge sweet tooth but I now find sweetness unpleasant most if the time. I can deal with low sugar fruit and a teaspoon of xylitol in my coffee (infrequently) but other than that, it doesn't appeal.

As an aside, has anyone else found really increased strength and endurance for the resistance training? I was flinging those weights around like feathers last night! :D

Also, did/ does anyone feel like they are generating vast quantities of heat? I feel like I'm burning up and my mind us going to internally combust with all the thoughts whirling around. I keep thinking "I need to write that down in my journal, it's great" but I don't know where it's all coming from! I'm not really hugely concerned about it, more curious really.
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

Sorry, pressed the wrong button to modify some spelling!!!


Prodigal Son said:
Psyche said:
...

I would like to experiment not having any sweeteners at all to see if it makes a difference. I remember when I first tasted stevia, it tasted bad and I eventually got used to it and ended up liking it. Perhaps that is a bad sign.

...

Anway, I'm going the no sweetener way as an experiment. I think that the taste of any sweet flavor just makes things worse for me.
Go for it, I dropped all forms of 'sugar sweeteners' (ignoring fruit and carbs, cakes and biscuits) - I suppose I'm saying in beverages of all descriptions, about 35 years ago, and once adapted, which didn't take long, I haven't looked back since. The taste of the beverage comes through completely. The taste buds are re-calibrated.


Edit: spelling

However, to reply to lwu02eb

lwu02eb said:
...

As an aside, has anyone else found really increased strength and endurance for the resistance training? I was flinging those weights around like feathers last night! :D

Also, did/ does anyone feel like they are generating vast quantities of heat? I feel like I'm burning up and my mind us going to internally combust with all the thoughts whirling around. I keep thinking "I need to write that down in my journal, it's great" but I don't know where it's all coming from! I'm not really hugely concerned about it, more curious really.
Yes, to the first question re resistance training - that is until I damaged my elbow whilst out cycling! That has put me back a bit in terms of fully using my left arm.

And, yes to the second question - I mainly notice it at night in bed. I live on the ground floor, and often think, know that it feels colder inside than outside. However, this autumn, I've still to switch the heating on, I'm still wearing summer 'clothing' to bed, I'm still using a summer weight duvet only. This time last year I was wearing thermals, and a beanie, sleeping under a combined summer and winter duvet, a thermal blanket and a thick 'normal' blanket (and as it got into winter, a sleeping bag on top) - so yes the KD diet, cold adapting and resistance exercising is certainly generating a lot of heat. :D
 
Re: Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation?

beetlemaniac said:
Psalehesost said:
Alternatively, one can simply skip sweeteners of all kinds. It's both simpler and cheaper, and unless one is addicted to the sweet taste (and the chemical response to it), the lack of sweetening really doesn't matter.

When you say our chemical response are you talking about dopamine?

Yes - the response that creates addiction. As far as I understand it, it doesn't even have to taste "sweet" to trigger a chemical response - what matters is that the taste buds register something. Though the response is to be stronger - significantly so - if along with registering "sweetness", any sugar (i.e. simple carb - it can be one without taste) is also present.

beetlemaniac said:
Your earlier post about under-consuming protein made me realise that I was also doing the same thing by just drinking broth devoid of anything else. I was not conscious of this lack as I was so focused on eating as little as possible. When the temptation for chocolate came up suddenly (during a weekend with family), I fell for it. Just another example of how important it is to not go to extremes. Thanks for sharing your experience on that Psalehesost :).

Glad others can learn from my mistake and not repeat it to the same extent (i.e. losing muscle and getting weaker).

I've been eating much more lately - each meal probably two to three times as large - but still maintaining a 50% fat to meat (not fat to protein) ratio when cooking my meals. So a meal can end up with at least around 130-140g of meat (before cooking) and the same amount, or a bit more, of tallow (before rendering).

My weight remains lower, though, and I think I'll have to train back the lost muscle/weight.

Increased protein does increase appetite, though increased fat keeps me sated. I guess I'll see when it comes to restricting protein again - to a more sensible extent. I think I'll follow dugdeep's advice to keep it up (i.e. pretty much as now) until fully recovered, which means all strength and weight back.

lwu02eb said:
did/ does anyone feel like they are generating vast quantities of heat? I feel like I'm burning up and my mind us going to internally combust with all the thoughts whirling around. I keep thinking "I need to write that down in my journal, it's great" but I don't know where it's all coming from! I'm not really hugely concerned about it, more curious really.

Yesterday I found myself getting warmer, actually sweating on the bus to the university - which indicates a change: Usually, unless it's hot and in the summer, I sweat so little that (literally) it would not even be possible to detect by smell whether or not I showered in a week or not.

(There was also then one unusual condition: I found myself in a tight spot schedule-wise and, save two naps, the longer of them for a bit over two hours, I was up for over 48 hours. And my brain kept working, I could read and focus on e.g. math, as each meal - with around six hours in-between - left me feeling quite refreshed. Interesting, though obviously not something to repeat often.)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom