Real good point. Especially since for at least 95% of the time for our current species and 99.9% of our current genus humanity ate a fat based diet. I have to admit I missed that point when I quickly read the article.
As a Paleodiet fan, I highly recommend that everyone read Cordain’s “Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double-Edged Sword”.
On the subject of carb cycling, I consumed 17g of carbs today and I can’t stop beating myself up over it! I know its still bellow the 20g but its the most I have eaten since starting KETO. I’m usually bellow 7g per day. Today though, I was oddly hungry 
You do realize that that is less than 70 calories? The whole purpose of Carb cycling is to prevent a metabolic slowdown, usually pertaining to those who are training or performing other rigorous physical activity. It’s usually anything from one meal to a full blown, two day massive Carb intake to completely recompensate glycogen.
To me this is the downside of “keto” thinking, it lends itself to this binary view where someone is “in ketosis” and burning fat, or “kicked out of ketosis” and not burning fat. When in reality most people don’t needed to concern themselves with being in X level of ketosis, just burning fatty acids as their primary fuel which may or may not result in measurable ketones.
Don’t beat yourself up over that. That’s not anything to think about even. 20 carbs is even just an ultra conservative base line. That’s not remotely carb cycling. Maybe if you had eaten 170 grams of carbs you could call it that… 17… No, you need to be easier on yourself.
Adam, is there a real ‘problem’ with so many people thinking that way, though? I’ve never tested for ketones, and since fat is definitely getting burned, see no reason to. Yet I also don’t see much hand-wringing over it, from those who do test, either.
That’s the thing though, lots of people get extremely stressed over their ketone readings. I’ve seen it so many times. I don’t think it’s mentally healthy tracking something that only forms an incomplete picture and staking your success on it. Unless you truly need to eat a ketogenic diet for brain reasons, then it is relevant.
As a fat anorexic, its a big deal for me, and I’m glad. It means I won’t do it tomorrow, even though I’m feeling bad about it right now.
How do you even manage less than that? I was trying to do a fat fast today (failed miserably) and ate nothing but zuccini, macadamia nuts, cream, cheese and avocado and still had way more than that in carbs
Is that net or total?
The concept of a “Fat Fast” was developed many years ago and was intended mainly for the obese. What it does is begin the process of reduction of lipogenic resistance states. It also provides a very strong leptin response, which is important to the obese, as their leptin response is essentially disabled (due to leptin resistance) when following a Carb based nutritional pattern.
The debate is if it is really necessary, when compared to the 60/35/5% lipolytic macro. Since protein is essential, and is only available as an energy source when used as a substrate for gluconeogenesis, protein defficiencies are very possible, as the body may default to burning muscle when dietary protein intake drops too low. Protein is best left to it’s main function, cellular repair, replacement, and growth, rather than as an energy source. That’s why it’s important to hit the proper 60/35% macro. Overeating protein can also easily stall fat loss, not only due to it’s use as an energy source, but also because insufficient fat intake can lessen the leptin response. Not enough leptin to flux through the Hexsosamine Biosynthetic Pathway, which provides the satiety response…
That piece was a little above my head, I’m not a science geek. I’m most interested in how the science is applied. Seems like the gist of it is if your body is in ketosis, most of your cells are using fat rather than glucose. And that’s good for us for a host of reasons.
I agree with he says but what he says is something for most of us to aspire to. For someone who is a physical specimen who wants to tinker with their macros to have different fuel sources for different needs, what he says is true. But for a lot of people who are trying to tap into old, stubborn fat stores we have more urgent priorities than having a little glucose on board for an Ironman competition. I like Mark and most of what he says but he’s in the same boat as a lot of health experts, they emphasize “optimal” without addressing what might need to be different leading up to optimal.
I just have not seen the “lots of people,” Adam. 
Totally agree with you that agonizing over the numbers will usually be pointless/silly/worthless. My impression, however, is that more people like the data and enjoy collecting and tracking it, than get all stressed-out over it.
I like to keep a track so I can check back on progress etc I have food charts from day 1
I write down everything I eat on charts printed out and stuck to the fridge door. I use the food labels for the macros.
Today I ate
2 fried eggs with 3 slices of bacon.
1/2 large chicken breast with broccoli and coffee with HWC
2 meals suits me because I don’t get hungry until lunchtime, and then I cook dinner when hubby gets home from work, so last meal is about 5 to 6pm
Thank you.
I think Cronometer reads high (which makes me feel better). I put what you ate through it (of course guessing on amounts) and it said 10.3 total carbs and 5 net carbs and 471 calories total.
I think I may need to retrain my appetite a little. I have been trying a fast fat and have been hungry all day and keep craving protein
@Saphire , the few times that I’ve done a fat fast it’s been by accident (basically fatty coffee then fasting for the rest of the day) so I speak from a place of minimal experience on this, but I’ve seen folks say that they’re much hungrier eating something than just water fasting (i.e. that fat fasting is harder than just plain fasting). I wonder if chewing and eating set up an expectation for our bodies that more food/some protein is on its way?
Geez guys, what kind of caloric deficits are you running? Fat loss is a fairly slow process, in order for it to be healthy as hormonal secretion patterns adjust. A 500 calorie per day deficit results in a one pound per week fat loss, a very reasonable amount. A 1000 calorie per day deficit results in two pounds, but that is fairly drastic and can potentially put you into a metabolic slowdown, actually slowing fat loss. Periodic fasting works, especially to jump start things, but if it becomes chronic you will have all sorts of orexigenic hormone (starved state) secretion effects which will sabotage both your health as well as your fat loss. Cutting down to one meal a day can be effective if it contains enough calories, especially if it prolongs a ghrelin secretion, (hunger, felt in the stomach) but if you drastically restrict calories it will slow things down as far as fat loss, and can potentially cause you to start burning your own muscle. Observed weight loss in this case may actually be your own muscle mass.