(Old Baconian) #101

Nor do I. And my definition of “reheated” may be lacking, in other’s view. Often it merely involves taking the chill off.

Also, if you leave your meat extremely rare when you cook it, there is plenty of room for microwave missteps without severe damage to the reaheated experience, if you know what I mean.

(bulkbiker) #102

I have mine cold… yumster…

(KCKO, KCFO) #103

Yeah I always seem to add salt and just eat it cold. Love the stuff that way.

Isn’t it great we all eat it the way we like it :slight_smile:

(Doug) #104

Again, I’m looking for things that are always true, not just true on a case-by-case basis. Some people do fine and don’t get obese on diets we would consider stratospherically high in carbohydrates.

On just restricting calories to modify the body’s response - while there’s no question this is commonly a recipe for failure as far as losing weight once obese, if it prevents the body from losing homeostasis and proper hormonal regulation in the first place, then it can’t just be dismissed. As long as we’re not increasing our average insulin level, insulin resistance, fat in our livers and pancreases, etc., then vast numbers of the battles we recount on this forum are already won.

Well sure - in your case. And in mine, and it’s true among a great many people on this forum. Yet it’s not universal, at all. If we are talking about our cases, then of course I agree that “not every calorie is equal” – to the point that carbohydrates are having a harmful effect. No argument from me:

(IDM Educator) #105

I was Googling TRE to see what was said out there and the ketogenic forums came up, this thread specifically. I don’t know if I’ve already spoken in here or not, this thread is 3 months old, but I can tell you that I work with IDM. They are foremost in the world on fasting.

And your fiancé is absolutely correct.
Good on him!

(Alec) #106

Because this is called hyperinsulinemia, and we can’t spell it. :joy:

(Alec) #107

Nothing wrong with linguistic pedants… but it is a dangerous place to be (from personal experience). Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I am frequently amused by the threads in this forum that call out incorrect language use, but in the process make their own grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. [Now, did that need an Oxford comma? :joy::joy::joy:]

(Doug) #108

In my opinion, yes - it sounds better and is less susceptible to confusing meanings in some other such sentences.

(Justin Jordan) #109

You can give me (a Type II diabetic) a dose of exogenous insulin that would literally kill an entire family of normal people and I’ll be fine. Insulin resistance is as accurate as anything.

In the spirit of the thread - I mean literally when I say literally above.


I don’t know. But somehow I would think that compressing your eating time window from 12 hours to, say, 8 hours or less is more accurately described as Time-Restricted-Eating.
Especially when taking into consideration that scientific studies done on mice doing intermittent fasting, say, by an every other day schedule, would probably translate to a couple of days for humans.
So the effects that one would which to translate to humans is probably not equivalent at all when we do our so-called intermittent fasting protocols of 18:6 or the like.
However a five day water fast every month would probably qualify as an intermittent fasting protocol as it is not a timed circadian feeding schedule.
But this is a matter of opinion.
I don’t think fasting has any established lingo that is agreed upon. It is used with very different meaning all the time.
But I think it would be great to motivate, clarify and discuss the terminology. What does one mean with intermittent fasting and where are the lines between this and prolonged fasting or time-restricted-feeding.

(PJ) #111

So once upon a time, it was thought that elevated insulin was caused solely by elevated blood glucose.

It turns out there are several pathways to elevating insulin. (And this explains why merely low-carb is sometimes not enough to deal with it.)

And while elevating glucose seems (so far) to be the main one, more recent research suggests that the insulin may be elevated, returning the glucose to normal levels promptly, which is perceived in blood tests as ‘normal / non-diabetic’, for years, even decades for all we know, before the situation with hyperinsulinemia gets bad enough long enough that finally the muscle cells and even adipose cells start resisting the onslaught – and THEN it shows up as blood glucose problems.

So it is the case that people may spend a good chunk of their life hyperinsulinemic but since doctors don’t test insulin, only glucose (and even that only sometimes), it gets completely missed.

Theories on why this is the norm have two sides:

  1. On one hand, the pharma mfrs would love to make the $ from a gazillion new instant customers who suddenly realize they are on the path to diabetes.

  2. On the other hand, the absolutely staggering percentage of the population who would promptly be diagnosed, would make it far too obvious that our primary USDA food push (grains and produce) is dosage-poisoning the entire population, and many powerful sources have gone to great lengths to make sure that is not apparent… and we simply blame individuals for moral failing (all of them), rather than looking seriously at what government and corps have done to the nation and gradually much of planet earth.

(There is an old Star Trek: The Next Generation episode (season 1: episode 21 free if you have amazon prime) where residents of one planet have basically enslaved the residents of another planet with a drug which is insanely expensive. The one planet works all the time, in near poverty, to afford this drug which must be taken regularly to save them from this incurable disease (which turns out to be detox from the addictive drug. Which originally was, truly, for that illness, but the illness vanished eons prior). The other planet of people live in luxury off the money people from the other planet spend on the drug. It’s incredibly insightful as a parallel to the situation with “ingestible entertainment” – which our culture does not seem to realize is intentionally designed addiction. Sorry I’ve just exposed myself as a Trek nut. :smiley: )

Back to the point: so it is not like insulin resistance fell on you outta the sky based on the position of the stars or something. :smiley: It’s simply that for some people the situation is under the radar – simply because our medicine doesn’t measure in a way to find it.

(Carl Keller) #112

Fortunately we don’t have to see it in order to fix it. Avoiding sugar and starch and eating saturated fat is the ultimate medicine. :slight_smile:

(PJ) #113


(It was that you pointed out it was never any issue until your 40s. I wondered if you were finding it odd, its sudden arrival. That’s the only reason I mentioned that. I am clumsy with words today.)

(Carl Keller) #114

It wasn’t sudden. The pounds came slowly at first, a few each year and then lately they came in fives and tens. It got progressively worse.