[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/
> More recently, Willi et al. examined the efficacy and metabolic impact of a VLCARB in the treatment of morbidly obese adolescents [4]. Six adolescents weighing an average of 147.8 kg consumed the VLCARB (25 g of carbohydrate/day) for 8 weeks. The results indicated that the weight loss with VLCARB is rapid, consistent, and almost exclusively from body fat stores. Changes in lean body mass, as estimated from DEXA and urinary creatinine, were not significant over the term of treatment. Bioelectrical impedance measurements reflected a greater loss of lean body mass, but changes in total body fluid and electrolyte content, as a result of dietary ketosis, may complicate these measurements.
> Although more long-term studies are needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn, it appears, from most literature studied, that a VLCARB is, if anything, protective against muscle protein catabolism during energy restriction, provided that it contains adequate amounts of protein.
What? Maybe, but I think citation is needed there. The most widely popular keto diet, Atkins, doesn't say a thing about fasting - when you boil it down, and don't do any of the stupid carb-replacement recipe trickery that a lot of people do, Atkins equates to: take your normal meal with meat, starch, and vegetable, and stop making the starch, eat a little more vegetable if you want. Voila, there goes 500-1000 calories a day, more if you're eating starchy/sugary snacks. And you won't be hungry between meals. It's not rocket science.
Diabetic people actually need carbs as if they use insulin shots, they often get hypoglycemic. If you have an active lifestyle, your BG actually just replenishes your glycogen depots and possibly you don't have much excess fat anyway. So, live a healthy lifestyle and then a moderate diet will work just perfectly!
Anyway, fat deposits in moderate size are not a bad thing. In fact, in many cases, they save lives - the evolution did not invent them without a solid reason. Yes, excessive fat is bad for men as it's feminizing, but doesn't have a huge impact on women when you look at the studies. There's also a good reason why fat is not so easily mobilized.
Yes, a low carb diet makes people feel less hungry, so they eat less. A (supposedly) "normal" carb diet makes many people hungrier than they should be so they eat excessively.
I doubt you really feel that comfortable because then why wouldnt you eat like this all the time? Just that you are referring to it as a "fast" tells me you are craving food. If you ate less because you felt satiated, you wouldnt refer to it as a fast.
I don't even know what you are talking about regarding overeating fat. My experience is just cut out the grains and sugars and eat whatever else you want. If you crave fat, then you eat it. There is no overeating involved. That is the entire point, if you keep your carbs low enough you do not want to overeat anything. There is no self-control involved, in fact you need to sometimes force yourself to feel like eating for social/etc reasons.
There is also no need to purchase "fancy fats", you do probably have to prepare your own food though since sugar is added to everything prepared for you.
>"All these diets ignore the most recent scientific discovery - epigenetics!"
This is hardly recent, and while I'm sure it has some sort of relationship to a persons optimal diet, no one has any idea what that is.
All I did is stop eating bread and preparing my own food so there was no sugar in it. So this extreme diet you are talking about seems like a strawman to me.
>"people should eat quality foods aligned with their genetic and epigenetic profile"
No one knows what this would be.
> "Don't eat too much carbs, don't eat too much fats, don't eat too much meat"
Which your body lets you know via a satiated feeling without gaining undesirable weight. "Too much carbs" seems to be over 50-100 g/day for most people. If it wasn't, they wouldn't eat more than was healthy.
An all meat diet is perfectly healthy if it includes enough fat. You started off by saying that you can’t get anything but energy from fat and that you need more than energy to survive.
> You cannot get "macros" from fat - you get energy, but you need more than energy to survive.
That’s not true. If you eat fat as part of an all meat diet you’ll have enough energy and nutrition to survive without problems. I wouldn’t be too surprised if a diet that was mostly fat with some lean meat worked as well.
> If you don't get carbs, your body breaks muscle tissue to produce it. There's also evidence that muscle is burned first before fat deposits.
Neither of these are true either. If you’re fasting and you stop exercising you will lose muscle rapidly as it gets broken down but if you continue exercising you’ll lose fat and a very small amount of muscle, accelerating over time.
> Ketotards eat a huge amount of fat thinking they are providing nutrients. Yes, you need fats, just like you need carbs, but not in excess.
If you’re eating nothing but meat you do in fact need fat to get enough nutrients. Given that carbohydrates are unnecessary to a healthy diet and meat is also unnecessary any notion of excess that claims to be acultural is ridiculous.
> Meat has vitamins and minerals, too. I'm not against meat, I'm against overeating when you're 30+.
This is the first time you’ve mentioned age or overeating. Every statement of fact you’ve made has been wrong. What was the point of taking part in this discussion?
Anyway, I keep saying - surviving and thriving are two different things. I want to thrive, not just to survive. I get tired of people giving the Inuit as an example. Yes, they survive on predominantly fatty meat (although they eat starchy roots, too, okay, "ate" as they've modernized), but I don't want to be anything like them, sorry, no offense! There are many tribes who are healthier, look better, and eat plenty of starches! Here's a recent article [1] about a tribe, which loads on starches, and looks and functions better than the Inuit. :D
Food is information. Eating high-fat may give some immediate results, but we have no idea what's the effect in long-term - nobody has such diet, sorry!
Also, cite a study claiming that carbs are not necessary for health? You're making a mistake again and again - just like fats carry other nutrients such as vitamin K, D, etc., carbs also come in concert with many others. It's 2018 and it's clear to all camps that refined foods are empty. I'm not asking you to eat refined tapioca starch, I'm telling you that you should eat sweet potatoes, yams, beans, legumes, etc. Of course, there's no perfect food and many plants have natural anti-nutrients just like meat and dairy do, but, again, we've evolved to handle lectins and others decently not to mention that many cooking practices also evolved unknowingly to reduce the toxicity.
I am surprised that nobody here argues an obvious detriment of carbs - their role in the formation of endogenous AGEs (advanced glycation endproducts), but, of course, for their formation, you need protein, too. At the same time, animal products are rich in exogenous AGEs [2].
[1]: https://www.unilad.co.uk/life/life-of-indonesian-tribe-in-re...