This week’s LLVLC episode with Mark Sisson

#81

I actually agree with you on almost all of this. My original question wasn’t: is Sisson’s approach perfect for everyone?

It was: “Why is Sisson - who has done so much to move us forward in our understanding of insulin resistance and a better dietary approach, who started talking about ketosis before 95% of folks on this forum even knew what that word meant, who has probably helped prevent more cases of T2D than we can imagine - why is he getting so much snark from keto folks?”

I would think even if you miss the n=1 part of his message, a simple “not for me (or others like me) but thanks” would be more appropriate given his role over the last decade (plus).

(Mark Rhodes) #82

This is something I have wondered about since I started. It makes good sense that society’s basic assumption was wrong when looking at the evolutionary evidence: We were not meant to be glucose burners all the time. Since the premise of being carbohydrate dominant is likely wrong then all of our other findings are based on this bias. So I began to wonder if and WHEN I hit the point I personally find health and I am full of wellness, if I could…say during harvest which would replicate when our ancestors did it, eat more berries, fruits some grains and vegetables, tapering down through autumn and keto-ing through the winter? Eventually this is a place I hope to be. Time will tell. My progress is such that the end of next summer I may be able to experiment.

#83

This is just based on what I’ve seen from some folks who seem to find a good balance: keto is their default/starting point and it’s only when they feel they’ve hit some kind of challenge or limitation that they re-introduce some carbs.
I think that evolution should be the basis of health practice and medicine, but for our own personal experimentation we should probably keep in mind how incredibly far we are - in terms of lifestlye, sleep, environment, sun exposure, epigenetics, personal health history - from what humans in any part of the globe were living before about 10k years ago. So considering things from an evolutionary perspective doesn’t necessarily mean re-creating/re-enacting what our ancestors might have been doing/eating.

That said, if you find that you can tolerate higher levels of carbs I bet you could find a wonderful way of eating that is more in sync with the seasons in your part of the world. Will you keep us posted?

(Paula Green) #84

“how we are… from 10k year ago”

As I read this I thought how far we are from even 30/40 years ago.

As a child growing up in the 70’s (in the UK) my lifestyle was very simple - 3 meals a day and a biscuit (cookie) with a cup of tea. No coffee shops on every corner, no 24 hour shops, no fast food joints - well maybe a fish and chip shop :slight_smile:

My sleep was easy - no TV in bedroom, no phone to play with, no computer screen light keeping you awake. Three channels on TV so lots of time doing other things including being outside

My sun exposure was limited - British summer is short and couldn’t afford trips abroad. No jet lag.

Epigenetics - I guess this takes longer but we must be exposed to way more toxins and certainly processed food that’s doing goodness knows what to us.

Mark Sisson is the first blog I started reading on health and a gateway to learning and being interested in so much more health wise. Although for most people here strict keto is the way to go I think Mark’s blog and books help many people and I think for some can seem a more gentle approach to getting their health back.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #85

On the YouTube videos that got me here, one of the biggest criticisms of speakers is, “(S)he’s obese, so why should I listen to him(her)?” While it would delight me to see “Mark’s too skinny–why should I listen to him?” on a video, nevertheless, a certain level of consistency is called for here.

Personally, the speaker’s appearance doesn’t really register, if the science is good. On the other hand, I might admire your physique, but if you’re not talking science, you don’t have anything to tell me.

(Mark Rhodes) #86

Oh yes, I will as time marches forward.
I also concur with you that our environment has changed and we should not apply what worked 10,000 years ago to now, at least not exactly. I am 53 which and lived semi rural most of my life and this means is that grocery stores did not have the choices we have now in the dead of winter. Watermelon in December? Unheard of. Still, finding out how well my ‘machinery’ responds to its input seems a great challenge which I welcome.

#87

Great! I find the personal experimentation side of things very interesting and so much fun. Looking forward to hearing more as you go on -

#88

He addressed this topic again today on his daily apple blog for anyone interested.

(Adam Kirby) #89

I agree with him completely, the goal for most people isn’t to be “in ketosis”, it’s to be an efficient fat-burner. Only people with neurological problems should worry about ever going out of ketosis. For the rest of us it’s more a matter of un-fucking the metabolism in the long-term and finding the best balance point for you.

(David) #90

I agree. My feeling was that Mark had some doubts about the truth of Jimmy’s own ketogenic diet, but didn’t really want to go there.

(David) #91

Hi @richard . Could you extend this reasoning a little to help those of us who might be susceptible to some faulty judgement (ie me) . The graphs and your explanation show how high Base insulin prevents access to fat stores meaning real difficulties in losing weight. However if fat is eaten to satiety, shouldn’t that broadly lead to weight maintenance whatever a person’s Base insulin levels. How do we escape the implications of Mark Sissons comments that sustained weight gain in those circumstances is caused either by a carb surplus (ie not really being keto) or calorie surplus (ie eating beyond satiety)? I think the answers may be relevant for keto eaters whatever their weight loss ambitions/needs. I can see that there are other factors influencing the body’s willingness to hold/release fat. Maybe they are a sufficient answer.

(David) #92

This seems to me to be a really thought provoking point. The question it raises for me is, if you are exposed to chronic stress which prevents you achieving success in health goals (for instance, weight loss) and you leave some steps (which you could choose to take) to reduce that stress untaken, isn’t that just like eating surplus carbs or not taking exercise, ie personal choice. Angelo Coppola was a health podcaster who spent a lot of time building a website and a podcast and then realised that all this extra stress was incompatible with his own health goals, so he stopped. If we accept that Jimmy Moore eats ketogenically, but finds exercise very difficult or unenjoyable, the stress of his lifestyle could be a huge factor in his struggle with weight. If so, I wonder to what extent the financial imperative (or personal sense of mission) of continuing with this lifestyle is similarly incompatible with his own health goals.

(Norma Laming) #93

I have had similar thoughts. If one has problems with food then it seems to me to be sensible not to spend the focus of one’s whole day on food. Move away from making this so important; get other things to think about, get off the Podcasts, change the focus of one’s life because food is a part of life, it’s not the purpose of life. Whilst one might have a reputation, it’s not essential to life to be in the public eye or well known for anything. Most of us are anonymous. Time for a reboot.

(David) #94

I think it’s worth saying that this is not an attack on Jimmy Moore. His conversion with Mark Sisson created a conversation opportunity and I look at Jimmy’s public face as a mirror in which we might see a little of ourselves. Which of us doesn’t struggle with balancing accumulation with sufficiency? Maybe there’s something to be said for minimalism in this discussion.

(Jason Fletcher) #95

Sisson was on point with Jimmy Moore caloric needs. It is not that a deficit will not impact your BMR. He was saying that you are functioning at a higher level at lower BMR because you are fat adapted and your metabolism is healthy. Because of this efficiency you do not need to eat as much and if you do your body will hold on to the fat. So Jimmy Moore is now in a high adapted state and is BMR is running like at 1800 cals and is like a high efficient eco friendly car. If Jimmy Moore was to eat 1800 and his energy was to crash then we would know that his BMR is running higher then 1800 cal. Sisson was right most people look at lowering BMR as such a bad thing because they want to eat as much as they can. Lets face it you want a high energy level at a lower BMR. You will live longer burning less fuel. I think over all Jimmy Moore is healthy and has trained his body the same way Sumo wrestlers do. Who most like Jimmy do not have any major identifiable metabolic disorders and their BMR is highly efficient.

(ianrobo) #96

On Keto talk he posted his latest speech and it is all about his weight and being healthy.

He is fully aware of his issue and what he represents to the wider world and I think he realises he either addresses it full on or it will look bad.

(Jason Fletcher) #97

was it his last one i have not have a chance to check it out yet

(ianrobo) #98

yep he is on a cruise so posted two speeches, one from him and one from Will

(Jason Fletcher) #99

This was one point Sissons made that is does not matter if your BMR is lower because when you are metobolicly healthy you will not need a higher BMR to run the same tasks.

This would be a bad thing and you can see how this would lower BMR. This is why you would eat Keto so you maintain your muscle and become a fat burner like Sissons stated.

I have only read half the book so far but it is really about metabolic flexibility. I don’t think anyone really would be able to eat 40 to 110g of carbs when they come form a broken metabolism. But it was not about making ketones its about not feeling like shit after doing so. If you cant you don’t simple logic but since there are a lot of individuals coming form a bad relationship with food it is like telling a alcoholic to drink just 1 beer. So the ketogenic zone not a great suggestion to the addict.

You have pushed me in a direction to get a better understanding of the mechanisms. I watched the series on cellular metabolism buy Chris Masterjohn. Let me say not a easy series to digest since the last chem class i had taken was over 20 years ago but it was worth it. Insulin is a major factor but now having a little understanding how energy is used at the cellular level it did change my perspective on placing all the importance on just one hormone. Plus it did give me some more ideas how to possible manipulate other hormones with timing and exercise.

#100

I’m partway through Mark’s book and am enjoying it. A quick glance ahead at the post-reset options shows that he thinks that those with serious metabolic damage would likely do best to just stay in ketosis long-term. I know that was a hotly-disputed point above, so I thought it was worth a mention. He feels that others might do well to move to somewhat higher carbs (but still low carb compared to most ways of eating, and obviously high-quality carbs) but keeping keto as a natural state to which you return often. In any case, he’s all about personal experimentation to find what works best for you.

I assumed that the info in the book would be pretty familiar to me, and most of it is: that we have the capacity to burn fat for energy, that SAD (both the food and the frequent feeding) basically disables that capacity; that other lifestyle support (sleep, stress management, etc) is important; that food quality really matters. What’s not entirely new but is finally sinking in for me is what @Jason_Fletcher mentions above: that in the long run, keto is good for us not just because fat burns cleaner than carbs but also because it will lead to a slower metabolism. This is terrible news if you want to eat all the food :slight_smile: but really great if you’re looking at vitality and longevity.

I like that he’s urging folks to go into it slowly. It sounds like he’s seen a lot of people crash and burn with keto because they’re basically running on cortisol and adrenaline* instead of actually allowing time for their bodies to learn to burn fat. I hadn’t really thought of it this way before, but if the body hasn’t yet learned (or re-learned, probably) to burn fat then when you cut back on carbs, if you add on additional stress (fasting, exercise) too early, your body goes into a kind of a panic and will likely burn protein willy-nilly (lean muscle if necessary) to get glucose for the brain.

*I think this is mostly going suddenly super low-carb and then playing around with fasting and/or intense exercise immediately. The advice on this forum - keto flu can be rough but let your body adapt; KCKO; you’ll know when you’re ready to fast - is terrific.

edited for clarity (I hope…)