What are your thoughts about the meaning of the new reanalysis of the Hall study for diet cycling (e.g. a week of non-restrictive eating, a week of fasting-mimicking diet and a couple of weeks of keto per month)?
Moderately long-term cycling in and out of keto seems like a potentially reasonable compromise, but this analysis makes it look like the carry-over effect of high-carb is longer than I would have guess. (I’d have bet on something like five days, not two weeks.)
I recently read about reversing insulin resistance (which is what I’m trying to do) and that it takes many months, maybe a year, to get cells to become more insulin sensitive again and it explained the actual science and that it goes in cycles of 6 week lots, which is how often the cells … umm… in the pancreas…? (I forget the exact details!) are replaced and hence re-programmed and that eating a high-carb meal just once within each 6 week cycle is enough to prevent the cells from becoming one step more insulin sensitive, so each time you eat a high carb meal, you’ve basically “wasted” the last 6 weeks regarding reducing insulin sensitivity and each high carb meal “resets” those cells for another 6 week time span…
So, in terms of a healthy person, cycling sounds okay to me, but in terms of someone who’s actively trying to reduce insulin resistance, I think it would pretty much mess up with that process.
It’s Nick Norwitz and David Ludwig. I know Ludwig is a proponent of CIM (the carbohydrate-insulin model), so I think was a re-analysis to see if the study really did “invalidate” the CIM (as Hall seems to hate keto and the CIM in general).
I’ll have to analyze this later.
I have noticed that sometimes when I eat high carb, typically only on vacation or holidays, I will get hot at night. As in burning up hot. Not sure what that is.
The problem with the Hall study was that each arm lasted for only two weeks. As Dr. Phinney points out, two weeks is not nearly long enough for keto-adaptation to occur.
There is the further complication that telling a carb addict that it’s okay to “carb cycle” is exactly like telling an alcoholic it’s okay to have the occasional glass of whiskey. I’m here to tell you it ain’t okay, in either case.
Quite apart from the issue of addiction, there is also the issue of what the purpose of finding some way to eat quantities of carbs might be. So we can get a regular dose of oxalic acid and other phytotoxins? So we can load up our cell membranes with plant sterols that don’t work nearly as well as cholesterol? To try and get us not to eat meat anymore? To enhance the profits of Coca-Cola and Frito-Lay? It truly sounds as though there’s an underlying agenda, here.
This ALWAYS occurs in Hall’s studies. Always. He never lets anyone truly adapt to ketosis.
There also was no washout period, which is used to “reset” things before another test. And the authors of the study point this out, indicating the errors that this causes.
And they knew this. Their whole study was designed to get a specific outcome. They are not scientists, they are dogma followers looking for evidence to support their view. What Norwitz and Ludwig did was do the analysis that should have been done in the original study (the data was available). But because it didn’t fit their religion the original authors decided not to do the analysis.
Yet more evidence that “studies” and “research” are really very limited in their usefulness. And very often completely misleading. “Science” has lost its way, and we are entering a new Dark Age.