A calorie is not a calorie. But why?

[OldDoug]

Robb Wolf has some good talks on youtube about metabolic flexibility, and he speaks my heart. Essentially he says that the world is not black and white, and “just avoid carbs” is an approach that is too simple, even though it’s necessary for people who have eaten too much carbs for decades. The problem is that we don’t know how reversible MetS is. We certainly regain insulin sensitivity with time, but will our Kraft patterns revert back to normal (type I)? Will a ketogenic diet impede our ability to tolerate carbs? We don’t know yet.

Yes - agreed - and there is so much to learn, yet… I question how much we can truly get back to “normal” - sounds like a good area for me to self-experiement.

[Fruno]

You realize, of course, that ‘fiber’ is cellulose, an indigestible carbohydrate. Yes, you can eat other carbs without cellulose, but you can’t eat ‘no carbs’ when you eat cellulose. You could say ‘no digestible carbs’.

Wrong again. There is soluble fiber that can be broken down by our gut bacteria, which is not cellulose (functionally and chemically). Hence it’s digestible. There are apes that live ketogenic by eating just leaves, and their gut microbes convert them into fatty acids.
A look at Wikipedia would have cleared this up.

OK, chemically fiber is a carbohydrate. Just as humans are mammals. So there is no difference between humans and mammals? Are we discussing semantics here? Because then I have better use for my time.

You do realise that in the US the fibre is included in the carb count don’t you…?
So fibre is a “carb”

Um, no. Really?
Can’t really read the nutrition labels that well from 6000 miles away…

[MarkGossage]

Yeah whatever…

[Justin_Jordan]

I just can’t believe that Phinney or Volek wrote that. It really sounds like sensationalist copy from an over-zealous intern, if anything.

Notably, Phinney’s ability to do research about a ketogenic diet was massively negatively impacted by the deaths surrounding The Last Chance Diet, which was quasi fasting, so he has a huge bias about it.

Which he’s talked about that, so it’s not really a secret. He doesn’t see it as bias, mind you.

Aside from that at least as of a couple of years ago, all the data he was talking about was extrapolations of data from different situations than what is typically going on with fasting in the mainstream.

There’s also stuff that even if true, are not necessarily negatives. I mean, for instance, losing body protein when you fast isn’t necessarily inherently bad. Valter Longo certainly believes that some of the benefits he sees from fasting are from breaking down protein an rebuilding it.

[Shinita]

OK, chemically fiber is a carbohydrate. Just as humans are mammals. So there is no difference between humans and mammals?

No one wrote there is no difference between fibers and carbs. Of course, not all carbs are fibers just as not all mammals are humans. One is a subset of the other.
(If all fibers are carbs. I think so but I don’t have huge knowledge about these things, I read but so much to learn and if chemistry is involved, I am at a huge disadvantage. I like to think I have some idea about logic, though…)

[SlowBurnMary]

I have been using specially prepped white basmati rice (cooked, chilled, and reheated by frying in generous fat to dry/seal the starch) for RS a few times a week when I can - but otherwise haven’t been eating straight rice at all. The fried rice in ghee is very delicious and I notice the distinct mental boost the next day, prob due to the BDNF boost. The times when I’ve not properly fried the rice to be RS (due to being rushed, less mindful etc) I’ve def noticed that yucky starch/sugar feeling upon eating it early in my meal etc.

I’m also aspiring to follow Dr. Mike Eades’ points about the two types of incretins, and how eating protein first at a meal elicits response from the ones that create a much lower insulin surge regardless of the carbs that follow - which may be the secret to being able to enjoy larger portions of the more riskier/addiction prone carbs (such as special desserts, or huge sweet potatoes - or, though I’ve not re-introduced them as of yet, einkorn wheat pasta or artisanal ciabbatta bread) with no troubles.

I do know that my satiety is excellent when I eat protein first, I’m able to enjoy small portions of RS prepped rice contentedly (several tblsps up to a 1/2 cup depending on the other foods) and also enjoy weekly high dessert treats (nightly during the winter holidays though because so many were on hand lol) without any weird sugar/insulin rushes. Whereas when I did my tamales experiment and just ate them without prioritizing picking the meat out and eating my protein serving first, I did have the huge insulin surge. Dr. Eades’ talk at last years Low Carb Denver event has been very helpful for me - and the body. No inches or weight gained, in fact, recomp seems to be going a bit faster since I started permitting myself a few higher carb days per week for antifragility and metabolic boosting, to keep the body guessing and also on behalf of raising serotonin in my midlife female physiology. I’m very pleased w/ the results.

[Don_Q]

Notably, Phinney’s ability to do research about a ketogenic diet was massively negatively impacted by the deaths surrounding The Last Chance Diet, which was quasi fasting, so he has a huge bias about it.

Interesting. That sounds like it’s worth some googling. I could never really understand his aversion to fasting. Like @OldDoug mentioned, he plays it a bit fast and lose with the studies he cites when he warns of the “perils” of fasting.

I fasted 18 days a month (3 fast: 2 feast) for four consecutive months last winter/spring and I’m fit as a fiddle. Every single one of my lifts went up over that period as well, so I certainly didn’t waste away…

I share his concern that extended fasting is poorly understood, and that extended fasting on a serial basis has never even been studied, but his dire warnings of doom seem unsupported.

[Justin_Jordan]

I fasted 18 days a month (3 fast: 2 feast) for four consecutive months last winter/spring and I’m fit as a fiddle. Every single one of my lifts went up over that period as well, so I certainly didn’t waste away…

Yeah, I mean — I’ve fasted forty percent of the days since Thanksgiving, and I’ve just gotten stronger. If there’s been any lean body mass I can’t tell.

[OldDoug]

There’s also stuff that even if true, are not necessarily negatives. I mean, for instance, losing body protein when you fast isn’t necessarily inherently bad. Valter Longo certainly believes that some of the benefits he sees from fasting are from breaking down protein an rebuilding it.

Totally agree here, Justin. There is some amino acid turnover going on all the time when fasting - the ‘magic’ of autophagy giving the body a supply (even if quite limited) for building/rebuilding. There is also a very small amount that gets consumed, even in people with sufficient fat stores to meet all their energy needs - we excrete some nitrogen, blah blah blah. From what I’ve seen, as a person gets leaner, the amount of protein that’s consumed when fasting increases.

I don’t know how much is replaced during the refeeding period - it would need extremely careful body-scanning - probably with more accuracy than we currently have. However - certainly, there are great benefits during the refeeding period, enough to make me think fasting once in a while is worth it, even aside from metabolic healing, weight loss and autophagy.

[PaulL]

The irreducible nitrogen loss equivalates to about 6 g protein/day/kg of lean mass, which is why the standard dietary minimum is 8 g/day/kg, to provide a certain cushion. The labile pool of amino acids isn’t that large, and the body is largely incapable of storing amino acids above that level, which is why daily protein intake is generally considered necessary.

Please allow me to point out, once again, that Dr. Phinney’s cautions about fasting are in reference to fasting longer than is recommended by Dr. Fung. Short three- or four-day fasts are not what he is talking about, and Dr. Fung does not recommend fasting for longer than that without medical supervision, any more than Dr. Phinney does. So the two of them are not nearly as far apart as may appear.

Dr. Phinney seems to be particularly concerned with injecting a note of caution into a discussion that he feels is recklessly enthusiastic. From what I’ve read, his warnings are appropriate, though perhaps expressed more strongly than might be warranted in a more cautious discussion. Does that make sense? Even Dr. Phinney is fine with 36-48 hours of fasting, from what I’ve heard him say. And as I mentioned, Dr. Fung strongly advises not fasting longer than 48 hours without close medical supervision.

In the Christian religious tradition (and, I assume, in other traditions as well), people have found it possible to go for long periods without food. Forty days is about the maximum, however, and a Christian ascetic trying to fast for longer than that would be castigated by his or her spiritual director for spiritual pride. One scholarly article I read recently put the absolute limit as 60 days without food before death occurs, so a forty-day limit makes sense, if the ascetic is to survive the fast and thrive afterward (also, the number forty has significance in the Judaeo-Christian tradition).

So experience clearly shows that fasting longer than 3-4 days is possible; but whether long fasts are consistent with maximal human health is an altogether different question. In all such discussions, we need to be clear about our goals and our presuppositions. In religious terms, fasting is not about physical well-being, but about spiritual well-being, so the risks and benefits are assessed differently. Fasting as an aid to physical health is a very different thing. It clearly has benefits, but can also, clearly, be overdone.