Six common beliefs addressed, Part 271

1. Why do so many low carb diets fail, even though you have explained how they would be the most beneficial treatment for metabolism?

Because most diets are fads and scams. Unfortunately, low carb diets have not been immune to this.

There are many iterations of low carb diets online which are full of junk foods (wrong macronutrient compositions), unrealistic/unsustainable protocols (bone broth fasts), floggings/binge eating (fast for a week/eat 3 pounds of bacon) and symptom chasing (postprandial blood glucose/gained five pounds). I have said before that the low carb community is full of frauds, scammers, snake oil salesmen and quacks. Low carb diets attract a lot of desperate, misinformed and serial dieters with eating disorders. All of these people are easy to manipulate, lie to and rob.

This is why I made this blog. In order for anyone to get the information they need, for free and simply explained so they have a better chance of reversing their condition.

2. What is the correct insulin to glucagon ratio?

Insulin in the pancreas is at its purest and most undiluted form. It is no coincidence that the alpha cells are right next to the beta cells in the pancreas. This close proximity causes for insulin to be potent enough to stop the secretion of glucagon, as its potency begins to reduce as it enters the liver and finally the peripheral tissues.

Insulin is released during the fed state so that's when glucagon should be properly suppressed. The fed state means no glucose should be produced as blood glucose naturally rises from the breakdown of the food we eat. The correct insulin to glucagon ratio at this point should be around 7 - 4.

3. I just watched a video on YouTube from a "low carb doctor" and he was basically saying that the dietary advice given on a national news network was wrong but he never said how exactly. He was just pissed at certain recommended items like fruit, barley and broccoli. He only seemed to agree with any item that was "low carb". I browsed through the comments and they were mostly of people saying they only had to take their insulin twice since going carnivore or how there is a war against meat. There wasn't a single dissenting voice in all of the comments. I remember, some years back, there would be challenges to these claims but now I see none.  

Because they most likely filter out comments. I remember when there would be a lot of unanswered questions in the comment sections of these charlatans but those are gone too. They know its bad for business to leave questions unanswered. Jimmy Moore was notorious for cleaning up his comment sections. He would ban people from his page, in a hot second.

Look, all of these people are frauds and scammers. Most of them have given up and moved on to something else but there are a few still holding on to their flock. They have just moved to another platform like YouTube instead of Facebook. Too many people from their past are still on Facebook so they look for a new audience elsewhere. I have said it many times before, snake old salesmen have to keep moving from town to town or their gig will be up.

Aside from that, all of these frauds are one trick ponies. They see dietary food choices from one myopic viewpoint - no carbs. For them, this is the "cure". Of course, they know its not but they peddle it because, just like you saw in the comments, someone will pipe up and say they were taken off their insulin or their HbA1C is lower than ever before. For these people, this signals that they have been miraculously "cured". They don't understand diabetes any more than the fool they are following. Of course your blood glucose lowers if you don't consume dietary glucose but the condition is still progressing. By the time your postprandial blood glucose shows a significant rise, you have been having blood glucose dysregulation for years. This is why these people will remove the carbs and then start complaining that now their blood glucose is going up from meat.

I hate to say this, but they are all dummies. Back in the day, when you could only get information from your doctor or some quack you met at the pharmacy, I could understand the ignorance but there is internet now. The same time they put into watching a clown on the low carb circus, is the same time they can put into reading some obesity medical journals. They are all free online, ready for viewing. They don't do it because they are lazy. It's easier to keep watching the clown comes out of the car than to do actual research so I don't feel sorry for them and you shouldn't either. Forget the ones that can't be saved and save yourself.

4. Why is it that a lot of carnivore proponents have become sick and had to leave their diets if this is the diet we evolved with?

Because they are quacks. Let's be real, the only "carnivore proponents" I have seen are just regular people who tried out a diet, found it beneficial and decided to write a book, make a website, create a program and charge for all of them. I hate to say it but they are grifters. They know where the money is at. It's at every single fad diet that can be thought of. These people did not take time to research the diet or its possible side effects.

We absolutely evolved eating meat. In fact, meat made us human, particularly when we learned how to cook it. Cooking meat extracts its nutrients exponentially. There is just one problem - we are not living in caveman days so the meat we have access to is very different from the meat hunter/gatherers have access to.

Hunter/gatherers have access to wild game. Wild game is very lean so it packs a much higher amount of protein per serving than farm raised animals. Eating lean meats for a long period of time can cause health problems (rabbit starvation) as you need fats to be able to metabolize certain nutrients. For this reason, hunter/gatherers eat nose to tail. This means they consume the entire animal, particularly the organ meats. Organ meats are where most of the nutrients, fats and electrolytes are found. It is also where you can find already digested and fermented plant matter which has beneficial bacteria.

In modernity, these "carnivore proponents" sit down to large plates of muscle meat and claim they are eating like their ancestors. They are not. Muscle meat is not as nutritious as organ meats and over time, you start experiencing electrolyte imbalances. This is particularly true on a diet that tends to keep your insulin very low. This can be detrimental in the long term because the more you deplete your electrolytes, the more difficult it is to replenish them and you end up in a state of chronic dehydration that's hard to reverse. This will cause all sorts of nasty health problems that can even become dangerous and in some instances not reversible.

Electrolyte imbalances are the worst case scenario of eating muscle meat carnivore but another problem is the fat in the meat. The muscle fat in farm raised animals is very different from the organ fat in wild game. Consuming too much dietary fat, over the long term, will only deteriorate your insulin function since fat keeps basal insulin levels higher than normal. This is why a lot of "carnivore proponents" end up seeing their metabolic markers deteriorate over time. This is particularly true if they already had some stage of metabolic syndrome. Farm raised meat packs quite a load of fat, especially when all you eat is cattle. Wild game is not cattle. It's a wide array of animals, including insects. Also this extra fat comes at the expense of protein. This means you can be carnivore and still suffer from not consuming adequate protein because that rib eye will fill you up before you can get the most protein out of it. Meat is very satiating so it is difficult to hit your protein goals without going over your fat goals.

All of this means that carnivore is the most difficult diet to follow out of all low carb diets. A lot of people do not like organ meats. They cannot become accustomed to their taste, they are difficult to find and you have to learn how to prepare and cook them. It is hard to have a Thanksgiving dinner table that features lamb hearts instead of turkey and fish eyeballs for hors d’oeuvres. For this reason, if you want to do carnivore using only muscle meat, you have to be knowledgeable in the right supplementation of electrolytes and possibly protein as well. You have to watch your fat intake through careful tracking of macros and choosing the right cuts of meat.

It's a science to do carnivore correctly in modernity because the carnivore of today is very different from the carnivore of the past. So don't follow "proponents", follow information. You must do the right research to ensure the diet you choose is right for you and will get you to your goals.

5. I keep hearing "fasting" people say that you can add fasting to any diet. Can fasting help with better blood glucose control.

I have touched on this before but it's been quite a while so I will recap in this reply. The term "fasting can be added to any diet" is a marketing slogan. Why limit your customers to only low carbers when you can have a wider audience covering all kinds of diets? These people are selling fasting. It's a business that's also a gimmick. They could care less about anything else except if its profitable at the end of the day. So they can't even explain how it works or why it should even work. We have already discovered it doesn't.

Fasting used in this fad way is a symptom chasing approach. Diabetes is not a symptom. It is a syndrome. There's a difference. If you want to have better blood glucose control, which is just another way of saying you want to obtain proper blood glucose regulation, then you can't try to resolve it using one method and destroy it with another. Every time you eat the wrong macronutrient composition, you are once again disrupting your blood glucose and fasting won't correct it. Instead, fasting would reinforce it because it lengthens your time in hypoglycemia after a bout of hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia disrupts insulin function and hypoglycemia makes the disruption permanent.

The premise of fasting is to lower blood glucose so that insulin release/expression reduces. This helps normalize your fasting insulin levels, breaking the resistance and allowing for better leptin expression. This is done after a proper meal that does not disrupt blood glucose to begin with. The last thing you want to do is fast after very high postprandial blood glucose as you will release excessive insulin after. This insulin will not be cleared after fasting so fasting further will only cause a severe drop in blood glucose. This strengthens the disparities between postprandial and fasting blood glucose, allowing the condition to be reinforced and progress.

Remember, diabetes is caused by chronic, large disparities between postprandial and fasting blood glucose so that is what you want to avoid.

6. I was told that carnivore was not a good diet because our ancestor's diet varied greatly depending on region and climate. I was also told that a balanced diet would get you all the nutrients you need.

Yes. Our ancestor's diet varied wildly as humans are highly adaptable when it comes to diet. How this translates to carnivore not being a "good diet" is unknown.

As far as a "balanced diet" goes, that is a product of modernity. Like I mentioned above, humans are highly adaptable when it comes to diet and can thrive on many different types of diets. This means they can thrive on a modern "balanced diet", the same way they can thrive on a restrictive carnivore diet. A "balanced diet" is no better than a vegetarian diet or a ketogenic diet.

No one who recommends "balanced diets" can even define what that even means. I suppose they mean any diet that is not restrictive of any macronutrient. Why the restriction of a macronutrient would translate to the restriction of micronutrients is unknown.

Humans have evolved with and thrived with diets that fall anywhere between 100% animal based to 80% plant based. The only diets that humans have never evolved with are 100% plant based diets (vegan), "fat free" diets or "balanced diets". Just like "balanced diets", vegan diets are a concoction of modernity as well but even so, they can be followed successfully if done right. That means that humans are so adaptable that they can even thrive on diets they didn't even evolve with.

A "balanced diet" does not guarantee you will get all the nutrients you need. The Standard American Diet (SAD) is a "balanced diet" but it is still quite nutrient void. The nutrients in your diet are completely at the mercy of you including bioavailable nutrient rich foods and your body's ability to metabolize them. 

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 263

1. My ophthalmologist checked my intraocular pressure (IOP), 6 weeks ago. One eye had a pressure of 23 the other 17. He said these pressures were elevated and I needed eye drops for glaucoma. I went in yesterday to be rechecked and my pressures were 10 and 12. The doctor believed this was an error so they rechecked it again and got the same reading. He said this was not possible without medication. I started "ketovore" a month ago and believe this is what corrected this.

I don't think you are recalling this experience correctly or some dire piece of information is being left out. But if it happened exactly as you are describing, you need to find a new eye doctor ASAP.

Normal IOP is considered to be between 11 and 21 mmHg. This would mean that your first reading showed one eye slightly elevated and the other as normal. Your doctor suggesting that you needed "eye drops for glaucoma" is preposterous. He didn't even screen you for glaucoma to make that statement. There are individuals with higher than normal IOP who never develop glaucoma just like there are individuals with normal IOP who do develop glaucoma. Risk of glaucoma varies and that risk has to be assessed carefully before glaucoma medication is administered. Many other underlying factors could be affecting IOP. Why he jumped the gun to glaucoma, with a single eye pressure result, is mind boggling to me. This is why I believe you are not recalling this correctly.

IOP varies considerably during the 24-hour cycle so why he would say that your change in IOP is "not possible without medication" is ridiculous. It is totally possible. A single eye pressure measurement at any given time, on any given day, in the doctor's office is only a snapshot of what the eye pressure truly is on average. This is why your doctor would have had to take multiple readings before he could determine if you truly have elevated IOP, what's causing it and what risk does it pose. Then he could determine what course of treatment you should have. My husband has had high IOP in one eye before, multiple times, and then it would be normal by the next reading. He was never been told he needed "eye drops for glaucoma" before and he actually has a family history of glaucoma. They simply monitor his IOP fluctuations, but he doesn't have glaucoma... yet.

This is precisely why I never take these anecdotal experiences seriously but low carb pages and groups run rampant with them. These stories always have missing information, incorrect information or exaggerated information in order to prove whatever narrative they want you to believe. I understand you are excited with "ketovore" but putting out these stories, that don't make sense, is not going to help anyone. Like I said before, there are many factors involved in the regulation of IOP. The reason that "ketovore corrected this" is because there was nothing wrong to begin with.

2. I lost 140+ lbs. but now I have kidney issues and will be seeing a specialist next month. I'm pretty sure all my health issues are 100% stress. My HbA1C is now 4.5, thanks to low carb. I just don't understand why I am having kidney issues now that everything has improved.

And I don't understand what your kidney issues are. You left that part out.

There are many types of "kidney issues". Not all kidney issues are related to diabetes, overweight/obesity or metabolic syndrome. I can be on the best diet and exercise program and still drop dead of a heart attack because not all heart issues are caused by diet and exercise. Sometimes organs simply mechanically fail because of some other underlying reason or even genetics. Certain medications also, when taken for the long term, cause kidney disease like blood pressure medications.

So, I can only go by the information you gave me, not by what you didn't. The fact you lost 140+ lbs., means you were significantly obese at one time and I don't know how long you were that way. I also don't even know if the loss of 140 lbs. got you to lean because you didn't say.

You said that your "HbA1C is now 4.5 which makes me believe it was much higher before. This means you were possibly diabetic or prediabetic at one time, but you also didn't say. Dropping your HbA1C to 4.5, which is something I haven't even been able to accomplish, is quite impressive. Too impressive actually. You should check your blood glucose lows. People in the low carb world always hoot and holler at low blood glucose numbers and HbA1Cs. They make it seem as if there is no bottoming out for these numbers but there is. Too low means big problems. The person with too low of these values is just as diabetic as the one with two high of them so, it is not surprising to me that you are having kidney issues. "Everything improved" is up for interpretation.

Diabetes is not a disease of high blood glucose or high HbA1C. It is a syndrome caused by poor blood glucose regulation which deteriorates insulin function over time. Abnormal release and over expression of insulin (insulin resistance) is notorious for damaging the kidneys. It takes decades for this to happen, but it eventually does and that is why kidney disease is such a common complication for diabetics. You can still have abnormal insulin function with a low HbA1C. In fact, it could be that over expression of insulin dropping your blood glucose so low. I would have really liked to see your fasting and postprandial glucose readings. After all, you have to explain that low HbA1C and nope, low carb is not the explanation. Are you on some type of medication?

This is why you have to be ultra careful when you listen to low carb zealots. Their goal is to just lower your blood glucose, as low as it can go, and they simply ignore everything else. Well, your blood glucose certainly lowered but at what expense? It appears your syndrome was still continuing unabated. Overweight/obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome have long lasting effects on the body, even after your blood glucose seemingly lowered and the pounds came off. I certainly would have needed more information so I could have some context of your issues.

3. Is there a point where you need to stop eating "keto"?

A well formulated ketogenic diet does not ever have to be stopped.

4. Why do low carbohydrate/"keto" people keep pushing a diet that they can't even follow themselves? Yet they swear up and down it's the only way.

First, you can't be duped this easily. You should know the answer to this. The people who are pushing this stuff are people who get paid off it. It's their job to push it and minimize/hide when it doesn't work or people don't like following it. Of course they themselves can't follow it. The diet has no ravioli, pizza, biscuits, cinnamon buns, shakes, cakes and pies. When it does, they taste like &@^$. Nothing beats the real thing and there is nothing worse than searching constantly for alternatives to the junk you used to have, only to find out it doesn't live up to the hype. So yes, these people will always be unable to follow a diet where it is imperative that you stay away from junk.

I remember watching a video of a "low carb doctor" where he had the audacity to say that a "natural, low carb diet is full of delicious foods". He then listed nuts, spinach, berries.... WTF? Did he not think we knew those foods existed before? We never ate them for a reason. They taste like &@^$. Yes, I can eat broccoli but who wants to?

This is why I never patronize my readers. I tell them the truth so they know what to expect and don't become discouraged or disappointed later. The key to success is to know exactly what you're getting into beforehand and to understand why you're doing it and what happens if you don't. That's all you need as motivation.

Low carb diets, when followed correctly and not "a-la-carb counting", are restrictive, elimination diets that require diligent adherence and a high level of commitment. This is because tacos, cookies and brownies will be completely off the menu and so will 90% of all the other stuff you're used to eating. Good bye Italian restaurant unless you order the caprese salad only. The diet is only meat and vegetables. No shared desserts and of course, the cookie bar is gone too. You can't have your cake or eat it at all.

You can find delicious ways of preparing and seasoning your meat and vegetables but no, there are no French toasts or waffles or even French fries to go with it. There is no lemonade or corn dogs so your carnival visit might be hampered. At the movie theater you better bring your own bland nut tray or your bitter 90% chocolate bar because popcorn and Kit Kat bars are forbidden. You can go through your phase of trying to recreate these items to be "low carb" but you will soon learn that they aren't the same and not even worth the hassle of making. Those that cross that bridge, actually learn to live with their diet, enjoy it and they begin to obtain results. Those that don't, will continuously fall off the wagon and cry about it.

The goal of low carb is not calories or to fit into a bikini. The goal is proper blood glucose regulation. You are trying to fix the tree from the root upwards because trimming the branches is not solving the crooked trunk. This is why low carb diets are only beneficial for people who are ready for a metabolic intervention, not those simply trying to find a new diet to follow.

5. If blood glucose disparities set the stage for overweight/obesity/diabetes, how does fasting play into this? A lot of fat people do not seem to ever be hungry.

Fasting is detrimental for people who already have metabolic syndrome because it prolongs their "time in hypoglycemia". Basically this is lengthy exposure to low blood glucose. This further reinforces the metabolic adaptation towards high blood glucose, insulin and body fat. You cannot keep stable and proper blood glucose regulation when you fast for long stretches of time. Remember, if the person is overweight/obese, they already have a high insulin demand so prolonging the time in fasting blood glucose only drops their blood glucose lower than it normally would due to the presence of higher than normal insulin expression.

This is why people on exogenous insulin and/or blood glucose lowering medications are told to not fast for long stretches as this will only cause them more problems. Lows in blood glucose are the engine that drives the condition we know as metabolic syndrome/diabetes. Highs in blood glucose would be the transmission. This car is headed towards dialysis.

Some obese people are often hungry but there is a large percentage of them who are mostly not hungry. No hunger is usually a sign of "leptin resistance". This is why it's not surprising that the never hungry obese, are the ones with intractable obesity.

6. I've read that on "fasting days" it's okay to eat, you just have to keep calories under 500. I'm not sure if I have to worry about macros. Can I have a green tea?

I don't know what you're talking about. This must have come from some asinine protocol you were reading online but it's not reality. "Fasting days" while eating are called "eating days". "Eating days" under 500 calories are called "snacking days". Doing this for a prolonged period of time is called "starvation".

The only thing that's called "fasting" are 0 calories. Fasting is when you do not eat anything. Nothing at all. Not a thing. Well, except for your own body fat but if your leptin expression is through the floor, you won't be doing that either. So it's zero.

Also there is no such thing as "fasting days". You fast daily for a set number of hours. You don't "fast for days".

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 222

1. My sister has always been overweight, but she recently had gallbladder surgery and she has lost a lot of weight in the four months after. I think she secretly had bariatric surgery. It is not possible to lose weight rapidly without weight loss surgery.

It is absolutely possible to lose an enormous amount of weight when going through a stressful health crisis. Surgeries, illnesses and accidents can all cause a rapid deterioration of muscle mass particularly in people with metabolic issues. In fact, people with diabetes are at an exceptionally high risk of damaging their liver/kidneys from rapid lean muscle mass loss during and after a serious illness.

This is caused by the exaggerated adrenal stress response that metabolically compromised people experience and which I have discussed before. Diabetics can break down everything on their bodies, extremely quickly, except their fat mass. The fat mass is always spared. It is this sparing that causes the rapid loss of everything else.

This would make it seem like the person has lost "weight" but in reality, the weight they lost was mostly lean muscle mass. This is why it becomes so obvious to the onlooker as the person might appear gaunt in the upper body and extremities but still have a large amount of soft fat covering their body.

This rapid "weight loss" is not good. Loss of muscle mass worsens the outcomes of recovering from serious illnesses, and it negatively effects overweight/obesity in the future. After all, if you lose a lot of muscle while fat mass is mostly spared, you are now fatter by volume than you were before, no matter how "thin" you may look or what the scale says.

Nutrition is vitally important during this time, especially adequate protein. Unfortunately, a desire to eat protein is usually lost when appetite reduces and people tend to seek novelties in order to stimulate their appetite, worsening the problem. Protein supplementation should be discussed with a healthcare professional for this issue.

2. Fat people always lie. They lie about "why" they are fat. They never blame themselves. It's always some "stress" or illness. My mother ballooned up to 225 lbs. and says it was "because of COVID".

There are a lot of fat people who are in denial and often "lie" about why they are fat but the vast majority of them simply don't know. They don't associate their behaviors, particularly their food choices, to being fat because they have been on countless "diets" and seen little to no results. This makes them start doubting that their condition could be related to food and they are correct for the most part.

Because of this it's easy for quacks online to tell them it's "stress" or parasites or viruses. Most of these quacks aren't misinforming them on purpose. They also can't figure out what it is because they don't understand obesity any more than their obese patients do.

Your mother didn't reach 225 lbs. "because of COVID". Putting on that much weight does not occur overnight. I am sure she wasn't slim and trim before getting sick. She reached that weight due to blood glucose dysregulation. This is mostly the result of lifestyle, which diet and exercise are a large part of. Of course, it would be very difficult to explain this to her as she most likely doesn't want to give up her diet or she believes she never "ate enough" to make her 225 lbs. After all, if it's all about calories, she would assume she had to eat an enormous number of pancakes to make that big of a difference in her weight. Of course, we know that's not true. It only takes one pancake, believe it or not, as carbohydrates profoundly incline metabolism towards obesity, even at low calories, through their effect on blood glucose regulation. One pancake is enough to disrupt blood glucose.

COVID doesn't make you fat. It makes you sick. An illness like COVID, which effects your respiratory system and gives you flu like symptoms, tends to make you not want to eat, as food loses its appeal when you're coughing, running a fever, can't breathe and may even lose your sense of smell and taste.

Of course, this doesn't mean that illnesses or injuries cannot contribute to weight gain. If I break my leg and can only sit in front of the TV for the next six months, while taking solace eating cookies all day, then I can say the broken leg contributed to my weight gain. But it only made a contribution, it wasn't the direct cause. You don't gain weight from unfortunate circumstances. You gain weight from blood glucose dysregulation due to sitting around all day while eating cookies, broken leg or not. Cookies disrupt your blood glucose regulation. Certain inflammatory conditions which require prescribed steroids will also interfere with blood glucose regulation. But these things can be circumvented to prevent or minimize their effects.

For those who already have blood glucose dysregulation, they will only experience more of it after COVID as illnesses cause a prolonged and exaggerated stress response in them. So in that sense, you can say COVID contributes to further dysregulation of blood glucose which will cause more weight gain but it doesn't work alone. There had to have already been an issue with metabolism to begin with. 

Overweight/obesity are lifestyle choices and, aside from diet and exercise, one of those choices is victim hood. If you are a victim of unfortunate circumstances and this is why you are overweight/obese, then there is nothing you can do about it. You will continue being helplessly overweight/obese while making absolutely zero efforts to change it. There are a lot of overweight/obese people who take this approach. They address everything except what's causing their overweight/obesity.

3. If you aren't counting calories and skip a meal, then that equates to less calories. That's what's really achieving any benefits.

This premise has been debated a million times over and the beliefs surrounding it are always incomplete or incorrect. There are a couple of assumptions being made here:

• Assumption One - Skipping a meal equates to less calories. That's not necessarily true. A person can eat an enormous number of calories in just one meal, depending on what the meal consists of. So, skipping a meal doesn't always equate to "less calories". It depends on what the meals being eaten are and what the meal being skipped was. Then the person has to accurately track their calories in order to know exactly how much they are consuming and how much they aren't. People are notoriously imprecise doing this. But you know what they are even more imprecise at? Calculating how many calories they burn.
  
• Assumption Two - Eating less calories, is what's achieving results. That's also not true. Again, it depends on what exactly is being eaten and what's being defined as "results". All short term weight loss and gain is mitigated through calories. If stepping on the scale and being ten pounds lighter is considered "results", then you can easily achieve that with calories. If the results you need are to get 50 lbs.+ off, then calories won't affect your metabolism profoundly enough to get the job done.

To expand on this question further, what's ultimately being debated here is whether fasting is the same as calorie restriction and the answer to that is yes and no. Like I mentioned above, fasting very well can result in a reduction of overall caloric intake but that's not where the benefits are coming from. If it was, then caloric restriction would achieve the same results but it doesn't. Why?

Because there is a big difference in restricting calories at "mealtimes" and restricting them "overall". The body doesn't respond the same way to these two forms of "calorie restriction". Calorie restriction at mealtimes results in increased hunger because the person couldn't eat to satiety and had to leave the table hungry. After all, they have to purposely refrain from eating because they can go over their calorie budget. The body reacts to this practice, if done chronically, by going into "starvation mode". It simply believes there isn't enough food available and for that reason, it must conserve energy and spare fat mass. Soon, all of the calorie restricted food that's eaten, will be stored as fat and no body fat will be burned. That's basically what "starvation mode" is - An under expression of leptin so the body doesn't burn its body fat. This ancient mechanism prevents starvation.

But if the person practices no caloric restriction during mealtimes and simply eats to satiety, without leaving the table hungry, the body will not react to a missed meal. This is why it is much easier for someone to drop one meal and keep two, than it is for them to eat three "small" calorie restricted meals. Dropping one meal does not signal to the body that there isn't enough food available. It simply signals to it that it must wait for its next meal.

Starvation mode is the Achilles heel of dieting and why all diets fail. You should practice eating habits that prevent this mechanism from kicking in before it's suppose to. The only time this mechanism should kick in, is when body fat drops to a critical point. Not before. If it does it before, you remain fat.

4. A person who only eats 500 calories a day will lose weight.

They will lose the typical water weight, everyone loses at first, and then the body fights back. It does this through increased hunger, reduction in energy expenditure from metabolic slow down, catabolism of lean muscle mass through an increased adrenal stress response and an under expression of leptin to stop any burning of body fat. The body will continue this trajectory until one of two things occur:

• #1 - The person gives up because they feel so unwell. They resume eating normally and they start feeling better, but their body insists that starvation is right around the corner, so it purposely stores all of their food as fat and continues to limit metabolic output. The person now easily becomes fatter than they were before while not increasing food intake.
• #2 - The person continues on 500 calories a day and ignores everything that's happening to them. This usually can only occur in a controlled situation like a prison camp or during famine but can also be seen in certain eating disorders. The person continues to burn through their lean muscle mass. The person can become a human skeleton but continue living. It is very difficult to starve to death as long as some food is coming in. This is because the body has extremely efficient, fail-safe mechanisms to prevent starvation. It will continue eating itself, down to the bones, if need be, in order to preserve the little fat that's left. If the person wavers from this, the same thing that happened to the person in scenario #1, will happen to them upon eating again.

Chronic calorie restriction adapts the body to becoming fatter. It will become fatter faster, better and become even more resistant to leanness than it was before the restriction. This is why calorie restriction is a terrible, unhealthy way of addressing obesity.

5. You can have "as much insulin as you like" and not gain weight, if you aren't eating excess calories.

The premise of this statement is incorrect. Insulin doesn't cause "weight gain". It is not an "obesity hormone". It causes for either primarily muscle to grow or primarily fat to grow. It's an anabolic hormone. It makes things grow. It is also anticatabolic but that's another discussion. Let's just concentrate on insulin's anabolic properties for the time being as that's the context of the statement.

If your insulin is being directed to build muscle, you will technically gain weight as muscle is very heavy. This is why some body builders inject insulin. They aren't worried about "having too much insulin". After all, the insulin is causing their muscle mass to grow. Of course, they take other things besides insulin to redirect insulin's action to their muscle mass and suppress it from taking action on their fat mass, but you get the gist.

If your insulin is being directed to build fat mass, then you will also gain weight, but it won't seem to be much since fat is not as heavy as muscle. If you were to inject the same insulin as a body builder, you will get even fatter.

As you can see, it doesn't much matter how much insulin there is. The only thing that matters is what it's doing. Insulin is always building something. Muscle or fat. Leanness or obesity.

What this statement assumes is that you can have high insulin and not gain body fat because you aren't eating excess calories. That is semi-correct. You can have high insulin and not gain body fat, irrespective of calories, excess or not. Remember, this isn't about having "high insulin" or "excess calories". It's about insulin expression. What is insulin primarily acting on in your body? You can be eating an excess of calories and your insulin could be building muscle with it. You can be eating a deficit of calories and your insulin could be building fat mass with it.

Insulin is sort of like a traffic director. It tells calories where to go and what to do in your body, regardless of amount. It doesn't care if it's Sunday morning or rush hour. The cars (calories) will all be directed to do the same thing depending on your insulin expression which is determined by your neuroendocrine state.

6. Fasting is an ancient practice that has become popular again today. It should have always remained popular. 

Fasting is an ancient practice that is still practiced today but usually in religious observations and customs. It was once thought to work as a weight loss method but failed miserably. This is why it lost popularity, quite quickly and became taboo.

The reason that it became taboo is because of its long-term negative effects on metabolism, when it's not practiced correctly. Basically, it can cause intractable obesity through chronic leptin under expression (starvation mode). This is the same thing that occurs with chronic calorie restriction. In fact, fasting became popular for weight loss when calories gained popularity for weight loss. Funny how calorie restriction is still practiced and condoned while fasting became taboo, even though they both cause the same metabolic dysfunction.

The only difference between the two seems to be that fasting causes this metabolic dysfunction quicker than calorie restriction as most people cannot sustain calorie restriction for long but they can surprisingly stretch fasting for longer and longer periods of time. This is most likely due to the body's ability to adapt quickly to the starvation mode caused from fasting than it does from calorie restriction. After all, calorie restriction still has some food coming in but fasting rapidly convinces the body it is starving for real.

So, that's why fasting fell from grace and didn't catch on. Of course, now it has made a comeback and all of those people practicing it, will eventually come to the same realization that all of the people who came before them did. By then though, it will be too late.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 219

1. Diabetics are recommended snacks which they don't need.

This is because it helps them manage their blood glucose better when they are on diabetes medications.

Diabetes medications lower blood glucose levels but they continue to do this, even while the person is fasting, and their blood glucose is already lowering naturally. This can cause for blood glucose to drop too low. Eating prevents this. This is why snacking is encouraged. Not because it helps treat the diabetes. It just helps prevent the medications side effects.

2. I have been eating less than 10 grams of carbs a day and stopped taking my insulin. I also recently started fasting for 48 hours at a time. My blood glucose has not stabilized! In fact, it's worse than before. I can't get a single reading below 140 mg/dL, even after all that fasting. 

Sir, mam, you are a diabetic. I have no idea why you are eating less than 10 grams of carbs a day or why you stopped your insulin. I am really hoping, praying actually, that your doctor was the one who stopped your insulin, but I highly doubt that if your blood glucose is so out of control. I don't know what you are doing or who told you to do this. I get people from many groups and pages sending me weird questions like this. I have no doubt that someday, any day now, someone will drop dead. I see it coming. It's inevitable.

Stop the shenanigans. The way this should have been addressed is by you starting on a classic low carb diet of no more than 100 grams of carbs a day. You would have first discussed this with your doctor so that your blood glucose could be monitored, and your medications lowered or eliminated as needed. Then, with time, as you gauged your results, you would have modified your diet to meet your goals. Did you do this? Absolutely not.

Instead, you decided to go online and begin on a ridiculously low amount of carbs (fad diet) and also stop your insulin to boot. Then to make matters worse, you threw in a long fast as well. Just because. If you are on prescribed insulin, it was because you are a full-blown diabetic. You are lucky though that your blood glucose hasn't gone to 500 mg/dL. This means you didn't crap out on the gamble you took with your own health and life.

This will not improve with time. Not on the protocol you are on now. Your body will just continue making sugar on its own from the massive stress you have put it under. You will be one of those "keto" practicing diabetics, that have been able to "lower their blood glucose" while still having Dawn Phenomenon and hyperglucagonemia. You know, the ones who are always chasing symptoms and fasting longer or eating more fat to try and budge their numbers a few points down? Basically, they are striving to keep the same diabetes they started with five years ago. In about five more years, you will be back on insulin and fully diabetic once again.

Why don't you address your problem in a more sustainable, long-term way that will actually reverse your condition with time? Look at the right-hand column of this blog and choose a proper protocol under 'Recommended Diets'. 

3. It is difficult to get weight loss advice.

Because there is no one way to "lose weight". When people refer to "weight loss" they are usually talking about "fat loss" specifically. Losing fat is at the sole discretion of your leptin expression which is controlled by your neuroendocrine system. This varies with each individual. Many factors play into this, including how much body fat we are actually trying to lose.

Simple weight management can always be addressed by targeting calories. Overweight/obesity can only be addressed by targeting multiple factors. That gets complicated. Very complicated. This means that unfortunately there is no simple advice that can be given to achieve this.

• Weight loss – easy to do. Weight is water, muscle and fat. Anything that temporarily affects these, will cause the scale to lower. You can simply dehydrate for two days, and you will lose weight. In fact, this is how certain athletes try to "make weight" even though it is a dangerous practice. Weight loss is best achieved with calorie restriction. The lowering of calories automatically causes water and lean muscle mass to be lost through the temporary lowering of blood glucose which lowers insulin. That's why all diets will promise you a five-pound loss in the first week, guaranteed.
• Fat loss – hard to do. Fat is fat. It is stored in your fat mass. Your fat mass is an actual organ. It is a large endocrine modulator. It's loss is determined by leptin. Leptin expression is only affected if blood glucose is properly regulated for a long enough period of time to affect insulin expression. Leptin is a slave to insulin. Only then will leptin sensitivity be restored and body fat is burned if there is no hypothalamic damage.

What is healthy fat loss? Healthy fat loss is when fat is lost at a steady, slow rate. This is because what you are actually trying to achieve is not "fat loss" per say but a fat burn and storage balance. You want the body to burn mostly fat and not store too much of it. This can only be achieved through a healthy and balanced interplay between your fat mass, metabolic hormones and brain. It is mostly out of your control as it is governed by your hypothalamus. You can only set the stage for this to be more likely to occur than not and that stage's foundation is proper blood glucose regulation.

You do this through following a lifestyle that promotes this balance. It includes diet, exercise and stress management. By stress we are specifically referring to metabolic stress which is managed through circadian rhythms to help regulate blood glucose.

This is why there is no specific advice to be given. You can only learn how your body works and what it needs in order to work properly. Anyone that says otherwise is giving you a load of BS. That's why diet programs are all BS.

4. Don’t fat people burn a lot of calories? Wouldn’t what's a surplus for thin people actually be a deficit for a fat person? If that's the case, why is everyone recommended the same number of calories?

That’s why we don’t guide ourselves by calories. Fat people burn a lot of calories from everything but body fat.

5. Can a person who is not overweight/obese maintain their weight using calorie information only? I have a friend who is slim and always reads the calorie information of everything she eats. It seems to work well for her.

Yes. Healthy people respond well to elementary nutrient information such as calories. Of course, these calorie counting people also pay attention to which macros are supplying their calories, as they know that's where the magic occurs. But overall, they can rely on calorie information alone to maintain their weight stable regardless of macros, as long as their blood glucose continues to be well regulated.

This is because healthy people aren’t overweight/obese, so their metabolism works well even with simple nutrient information. Their weight fluctuates very little and small weight fluctuations respond to calorie information, as that's what mainly causes these fluctuations. So, these people are targeting the actual cause of their weight fluctuations.

6. How are low fat diets supposed to work?

Low fat diets work through leptin, just like low carb diets work through insulin. Your coach will tell you that they work through the overall control of calories but that's not true. It's actually leptin and insulin manipulation. All weight loss and gain is mitigated through insulin. All fat loss is mitigated through leptin.

It is assumed that people who are overweight/obese are "leptin resistant", so they don't burn fat properly. This would mean that if you lower their fat intake, they will see benefits. What would be the point of intaking more dietary fat if you aren't using what you already have, right?

It's sort of like the same premise of low carb diets. If you are insulin resistant, what would be the point of adding more glucose, to the body, if you aren't burning what you already have? The assumption actually works.

Lowering the fat intake of overweight/obese people, who might be leptin resistant, does cause some weight loss. Unfortunately, they don't lose enough to not be overweight/obese. With time they also regain what they lost back again.

The problem is that you can manipulate insulin for the long term but not leptin. That's why low carb diets work better than low fat diets. Leptin is a slave to insulin so if you don't control your insulin first, you won't get much from leptin control in the long run. You control insulin through the proper regulation of blood glucose.

The best protocol then would be low fat and low carb. That's basically a protein sparing modified fast, right? Right. So, it's not surprising that's the protocol that works best. It's just that it's difficult to adhere to for the long term. It's sort of like calorie restriction. Very hard to maintain and eventually has to be changed in order to continue with results and help keep the results you already achieved.

To solve the problem, instead of making your protocol low fat, you can instead use fat as a lever. Remember, it is being assumed that overweight/obese people are leptin resistant but that's still just an assumption that can't be applied across the board. There are many overweight/obese people who are leptin resistant but there are some who aren't. The minute they control their blood glucose regulation and obtain proper insulin expression, their weight drops rapidly. This is why it's not a good idea to jump on low fat first. You jump on low carb first and then lower your dietary fat according to your results. This is because too little fat, for too long, causes what you are trying to avoid or reverse - "leptin resistance".

This is the same thing that occurs when you lower calories for too long. The body goes into "starvation mode". "Starvation mode" is simply a trendy way of saying "leptin resistance". The body is actively trying to stay fat and get fatter. It does this through chronic leptin under expression.

The good thing is that you can continue to be low carb forever and have no such negative side effects to metabolism. You can be zero carb, forever, and have zero problems because insulin just doesn't work the same way leptin does.

So, remember the diet that will most likely achieve results is low carb, adequate protein and fat as a lever (moderate). Some people can eat more fat than others and still see results. Don't sabotage your weight loss journey by making everything too low. Only one thing can go very low – carbs.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 214

1. There cannot be too much fat per day.

That varies with each individual. If you are not seeing results or are gaining body fat, while on low carb, then you have to lower your dietary fat intake.

Dietary fat intake can fall anywhere between 50 - 160 grams a day. It shouldn't go lower than 50 grams, but it shouldn't go higher than 160, unless you are an obesity resistant person who is already slim. The better your leptin expression, the more body fat you will burn so the more dietary fat you can allow. This means you can be closer to 160 grams safely when slim.

The poorer your leptin expression, the closer you have to keep to 50 grams of fat, as you are not burning enough from storage, and this will only heighten more storage. The body becomes more efficient at storage once fat goes over 160 grams.

2. My coach does not want me to use macros.

Because they want you to use calories. Each macro contains calories so if your coach's program is based on the restriction of all calories, they can care less which macro the calories are coming from.

3. A lot of the "keto" meals that I see online appear to be high protein and low carb, rather than high fat, low protein and low carb, which is what my understanding of "keto" is.

Ugh, I am so tired of this misconception, but it just continues popping up like fungus.

The type of meat that these "keto" people are eating is actually very high in fat. There is no "high protein" diet. It doesn't exist. The only way you can consume a "high protein" diet is if you use some type of protein supplementation. Even if you were to consume only wild game, which is extremely lean, satiety will not allow for you to ever eat "high protein".

But "high protein" is not the issue. The issue is always the energy macros - carbs and fat. If you are low carb, then the only thing that remains is the fat. This is why so many people simply cannot meet their protein goals eating meat alone. They must supplement to not go over their fat macros. Protein supplements are void of fat.

Why does this happen? Because fat must be kept moderate, particularly if you have poor leptin expression, or you will get fatter. It takes very little to make fat go right over that moderate threshold. You only have a 50 gram a day allotment if you have poor leptin expression. So, the fat in meat can quickly become problematic, particularly when you take into account added fats and any dairy you are consuming.

So, you may be eating more protein than you should be, if you are following a classic ketogenic diet, but you are certainly not eating "high protein". Aside from that, we don't advise on classic ketogenic protocols on this blog as our focus is obesity/metabolic syndrome, not neurological conditions. This means that the "keto" protocols we recommend are not meant to sustain chronic ketosis but to induce periodic ketosis instead.

4. Ketosis is disadvantageous for the building of muscle.

Some studies show it is. Some studies show it isn't.

Some programs do very well using ketosis for "gains" and others do well without it. Why are these studies showing different results? Because whether it's beneficial or not depends on your metabolic state. This is why all diet and exercise studies show different results and why all diet and exercise advice fails. What works for one metabolic state, does not for another.

The reason ketones would be considered disadvantageous to the building of muscle is because they are a signal to the body that it is starving. Starvation causes the breakdown of lean muscle mass into glucose. Knowing this now gets us somewhere.

If you have metabolic syndrome, you are already breaking down lean muscle mass into glucose at an exaggerated rate, so being in ketosis, which further reinforces starvation alongside a stressor like exercise, would break down lean muscle mass even more. This is why a person with metabolic syndrome should never exercise fasted.

For the healthy, being on a program which restricts protein and calories, can affect muscle gain particularly alongside ketosis because of this ramping up of lean body mass breakdown. They would have to choose a program that keeps protein and calories high enough to ward off this problem. Then ketosis would not be an issue for them.

It is quite a skill to keep protein calories high enough in order to build muscle as that takes a caloric surplus of protein, while still keeping fat and carb calories low enough to not build body fat. It can be done though, as body builders maintain this balancing act quite well because they are healthy enough to do so and their body responds with no glitches to calories, but an overweight/obese person will have quite the struggle.

The struggle comes in two forms:

• The trainer will recommend a deficit in total calories, which includes protein.
• The overweight/obese person is breaking down muscle at an incredibly high rate, which is further reinforced through total caloric restriction.

For this reason, it is very hard for overweight/obese people to achieve two opposing goals at the same time - weight loss and muscle gain. Well, actually it's impossible for them to achieve this using an obesity resistant body builder's method of doing so. They can absolutely do it in alternative ways, like the ones we recommend on this blog, rather than the ones recommended by your body building coach.

We recommend metabolic control first. You must stop the rate your body is breaking down its lean muscle mass. The reason the body is doing this is to keep blood glucose high due to abnormal blood glucose regulation. So, taking control of your blood glucose is goal number one. This is not accomplished through calories. It takes much more than that to affect blood glucose.

Only after this out-of-control gluconeogenesis is put in check, can you actually build significant muscle without causing further blood glucose dysregulation. An increase in insulin sensitivity will allow muscle tissue to respond to growth and glycogen synthesis. All are needed in order to look like your body building coach.

5. I am on a low fat, calorie restricted diet but my triglycerides (trigs) are steadily going up. 

Because "low fat" and "calorie restriction" does not address high trigs. This is normal and typical of these diets. Nothing unusual is happening to you. You should have expected this. This is why people on low fat and/or caloric restriction still have high trigs, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. Basically, metabolic syndrome.

Low fat diets only lower total cholesterol in people who have a genetic predisposition for diet to affect their cholesterol. This occurs, primarily, through the lowering of HDL cholesterol but some people will see a lowering of their LDL as well. Again, this is mostly genetic.

Calorie restriction causes stress in the body, which breaks down lean muscle mass into glucose and then that glucose is converted into fat for storage. This is an increase in de novo lipogenesis so of course your trigs will increase. Also, low fat/calorie restricted diets are usually primarily carb based because these diets do not focus on macros. They focus on total calories only. High carb diets increase trigs through the same process described above.

By the way, it doesn't matter if the carbs are only from "veggies". Vegetables are air. Air is starvation so you go right back to breaking down muscle mass into glucose as described above. In fact, vegan/vegetarian diabetics have the most dismal blood glucose control because not only do they have glucose coming in, in the form of grains, but they are also breaking down their muscle mass at an exponential rate. Double glucose = worse diabetes.

You can only hope for the best on the diet you are on. For instance, if you starve enough and don't develop diabetes, then your trigs will most likely stay where they are and you won't be able to decrease them, but at least they won't increase further.

6. If extended fasting only balances out periods of eating with not eating, keeping you the same as if you have done nothing, then intermittent fasting wouldn't be any different. 

Intermittent fasting effects metabolic hormones differently than extended fasting does.

Fasting only "balances out" if we are talking about calories but that's not what fasting is targeting. This is why extending your fast does not help. It only makes things worse. If it was all about calories, this extended fasting would work miracles and the more you could extend it, the better it would work. It doesn't. You would have to extend it to concentration camp levels and remain there in order to see any results. Of course, the results will be obtained through the loss of lean muscle mass and malnutrition, but the scale wouldn't care. Your "weight" would get lower.

What you are targeting through intermittent fasting are other metabolic processes that can help you when you do eat again, like an increase in the metabolic rate to help burn body fat. There are also other helpful effects like a release of liver glycogen, human growth hormone, lower insulin, etc. All of which intermittent fasting does quite well. The fasting is short enough that you reap all of those benefits and the fast stops before they start going in the reverse.

So, when we talk about fasting, we are talking about everything except calories. This is because fasting does not affect calories in any significant way as the body simply compensates with its caloric intake once you eat again. You would be better off targeting calories with a calorically restricted diet rather than with fasting because at least with a diet, you will actually achieve a deficit and sustain it, if only for a short while.

So, you aren't fasting to "eat less", you are fasting to effect metabolism.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 183

1. People should be educated on "low carb" and "fasting".  

There is no "education" to low carb. There is only education about obesity and what it's doing to your body. Unfortunately, low carb advocates do not teach anything about obesity because they don't understand it themselves. They look at the world through the myopic lens of carbs = bad. 

Low carb is very easy. Keep your carbs under 100 grams a day. Fasting is very easy. Don't eat. Class dismissed.

2. Is it very surprising that people are able to fast for 72 hours?

It’s actually surprising that anyone would be surprised they couldn't. The overweight/obese are the main people who can fast effortlessly. They make such an enormous amount of blood glucose, from the break down of their own lean muscle mass and ketones from their liver fat, that they can literally fast for days on end, with no hunger. Add to that their leptin expression, which has hit rock bottom, and they are doubly not hungry.

I have said it many times before, the overweight/obese are the least hungry people on the planet. That's why they don't like eating meals. They live off novelties because they are never truly hungry for real food. They have endless "cravings", not hunger. The overweight/obese don't even wake up hungry after a night long fast. The overweight/obese just want to eat. Hunger and wanting to eat are two very different things.

3. A low carb doctor wrote on his website that - "Conventional medicine will not cure your diabetes but you should consult with your doctor about any advice which can." What do they mean? 

This one made me laugh. It is ironic that these people claim your doctor doesn't know what they’re doing and won’t treat your diabetes correctly but then tell you to consult with them in the same breath. Well, what can they do? They are trying to cover their own behind from the quackery they are selling you.

4. Autophagy peaks at hour 72. 

Perhaps. No one cares. The only thing you want is to peak at burning body fat and who knows how long that will take. Certainly not 72 hours since these obese people can fast for weeks and still be just as obese as when they started.

5. Goals can be achieved through meal timings and diet alone.

Absolutely not. It takes much more than just diet to achieve "goals". You have to achieve proper blood glucose regulation. Diet will only get you so far as many things effect blood glucose regulation.

6. Is there an alternative to the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) diet and medications?

First, the ADA doesn't have a specific “diet”. I don't know where these low carb people get that from or what "diet" they are referring to. The ADA pretty much lets you eat whatever you want as long as it’s calorically restricted. They are trying to effect blood glucose regulation through calories. Any "diet" can fall under caloric restriction. All you have to do is eat what you want and restrict calories. 

The ADA also does not give out medications. Your doctor does. These medications are absolutely necessary for the uncontrolled diabetic. If it wasn't for these medications there would be a lot of dead diabetics out there. A diabetics blood glucose can easily reach 1K mg/dL without medications. Diet is only a palliative treatment for diabetes as is the medications. They both play around with your blood glucose numbers but the syndrome is still there. There is no known cure for diabetes. There is no known cure for overweight/obesity either. Basically there are no known cures for a metabolic adaptation towards starvation. Once your metabolism is on that track, it takes monumental effort to halt it. Notice I said halt, not reverse.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 180

1. I am 110 lbs. at 5'4 and still considered overweight according to "waist measurements and ratios".

Body mass index (BMI) is a measurement of relative body weight, not body composition. Because lean mass weighs far more than fat some people are incorrectly classified as obese based on BMI. This is particularly true for athletes and body builders. Skin fold testing provides a more accurate body fat assessment than BMI for those individuals.

Since it is not specified how you are determining your "waist measurements and ratios" I can only guess why you are being classified as obese. It can be because you have an oddly shaped body or maybe your 110 lbs. is all fat around your middle, which is not good. 

This is why there is no one marker to determine if your metabolic health is at risk. You need to know multiple markers, taken in the context of what your current issues are, including how fat is distributed on your body.

2. If sugar is truly "addictive", then why weren't people "addicted" to it 500 years ago?

Precisely! Sugar has been around for a very long time and though it does create changes in the balance between catecholamines and hypothalamic function, it is not considered a truly addictive substance. For this reason, we do not describe sugar as "addictive" on this blog.

Instead, we recommend anti obesogenic approaches in lifestyle in order to combat overweight/obesity. Considering yourself a victim of "addictive sugar" is a very pro obesogenic stance to have. After all, if sugar is addictive, and food companies put it everywhere, then you aren't to blame for your predicament. If you aren't to blame, then you can't do a thing about it. This will only keep you obese.

We not only tackle diet and exercise, but we also challenge the beliefs and behaviors that perpetuate overweight/obesity.

3. Many people, who have been successful on their new way of eating, still end up with gastrointestinal issues.

Aside from diet changes, which are the main cause for gastrointestinal issues, there are also other culprits. One of them is lower insulin levels. Low insulin levels usually cause gastroparesis.

4. You wrote before, in one of your posts, that: "If you are not losing weight or are gaining instead, then the body is in active obesity mode and the reduction of appetite is coming from a thrifty metabolism that is not burning any fuel and so does not require any more of it." So tell me again why I need to not fast longer?

Because fasting, short or long, does not address a thrifty metabolism, which is the operative word in my post. Just because the body does not require more fuel, does not mean that it will respond positively if you don't give it any.

What you need to address instead is its fuel management so it burns what it has. That is caused by improving leptin expression which is not done through fasting but through normalizing blood glucose control in order to improve insulin sensitivity. That cannot be done through fasting, as fasting disrupts blood glucose homeostasis.

5. All diets should include "carb cycling".

"Carb cycling", sometimes also referred to as "carb loading", involves going back and forth between high carb days and low carb days. You would usually have a high carb day when you plan on doing intense exercise. Supposedly, on those days, your body would require more fuel so you would need more carbs. No one who is treating their metabolic dysfunction, should be doing any exercise that would require primarily carbs for fuel as that would exacerbate their condition. So intense exercise should go out the door.

Aside from that, carb cycling is a topic that should never be under discussion when it comes to overweight/obesity and or metabolic health since it does not pertain to either. Carb cycling is a topic that belongs in athletic forums. This is not an athletic forum.

6. Nothing proves that "keto" would be better than a "clean vegan" diet.

Trying to "prove" anything of this sort is above my pay grade and a waste of time since people are usually not motivated by "what’s better for them" but by what they want to do instead. I recently wrote a post explaining what the issues are with vegan/vegetarian diets. You can read it here.

You would have to do your own research and try both diets to see which one is actually better for you, depending on the goals you have for your own health. You have to do the work. I'm not a salesperson so I don’t try to sell anyone anything.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 151

1. Only protein and carbohydrate calories are not allowed during a fast, but fat calories are just fine. 

Fasting is 0 calories, regardless of where they come from. Fasting while intaking calories is called eating.

2. Are longer fasts best for insulin resistance?

The only thing that is best for insulin resistance is stable and steady blood glucose. That is the only way to regain proper blood glucose regulation, which would in turn cause the proper release/expression of insulin and break the resistance. 

 

Fasting for long periods increases your time in hypoglycemia which is not stable and steady blood glucose so you are perpetuating further insulin resistance.

This is why the longer the fast, the less the benefits. Daily fasts should only be between 12 - 18 hours and no fast should be longer than 72 consecutive hours, once a week. 

3. Many people have great health benefits the longer they fast. 

This is because in the short term they are completely unaware of the long term damage. As far as "significant health benefits" are concerned, tell them to detail exactly what those benefits are.

The reality is that these people simply get high off their own stress response and then claim that's a health benefit. Or they completely lose their hunger from a drop in leptin expression and claim that's a health benefit. Maybe their immune system is halted and so their auto immune disease symptoms become temporarily better and they claim that's a health benefit. People talk out of their behinds while online. Don't be duped.

Many of the people who make these ambiguous claims, on low carb pages, are running "fasting coaching" classes and so they present themselves as their own satisfied customer in hopes you will click on them "for more information". Be very leery of BS.

Instead of guiding yourself by some fool online, guide yourself by what is truly known about how metabolism works and the research has been consistent:

• Short fasts are hormetic.
• Long fasts are damaging.

But don't take my word for it, or the hundreds of published study papers on this, just believe your own eyes. After all, some people have to see it to believe it. The longest fasters on Facebook are the fattest and getting fatter everyday. And all those obesity resistant fasters you see out there, tell them to contact you again in about two years time.

4. Blood glucose will rise during short fasts. When you eat again you might feel hypoglycemic but this is normal and it means you need longer fasts.

Your goal should be correcting your metabolic function, not your ability to fast. Fasting will not make you healthier. A functioning metabolism will.

The symptoms you are having are caused by an adverse reaction to fasting because of an exaggerated stress response. This is indicative of poor insulin release/expression. 

Until you are able to normalize your blood glucose, so that insulin follows suit, you will not be able to fast comfortably or in a healthy manner. Right now, fasting is only making your condition worse.

5. A five day fast is "intermittent fasting". 

There are no hard line descriptions for what constitutes "intermittent fasting" or "extended fasting". After all, all of this fasting stuff is a farce so there are no clear rules. The rules are basically made up as you go along and so are the terms used to describe each fast. Every fasting "guru" makes up their own definitions and writes their own fasting "Bible".

Low carb doctors will never correct this because they can hide behind these ambiguous terms, legally. The longer you fast, the more money they make. Longer fasts mean you will need their coaching and support so you are more willing to give them clicks, views and even join their Patreon pages or paid programs. You will also be more willing to buy their "fasting aids". Longer fasts also mean that you will see immediate "results" in "scale weight". The loss of water weight causes the scale to go down rapidly and this legitimizes their protocols. Happy customers will make recommendations to their friends. In other words, it's all a scam. Then when you gain weight again, they will find a way to blame you for it because they certainly can't blame their snake oil.

On this blog, we define intermittent fasting as any fast that is 72 consecutive hours or less. Period. Anything beyond that is not intermittent fasting. The recommendation for 72 hours is based on studies researching the effects of starvation on metabolism and not just a number I pulled out of my behind. Nothing good occurs after 72 hours. This is why we reserve 72 hour fasts for the morbidly obese and only once a week since the vast majority of people benefit just fine from 12 - 18 hour daily fasts. If they don't, extending the fast won't make a bit of difference.

6. If intermittent fasting is not working, you need to fast longer.  

My response is the same as above.

Let me be clear on something that a lot of people don't seem to understand or don't want to. If a 12 - 18 hour daily fast does not improve your metabolic function, no other length of fast will. Re-read that sentence a few times until it sinks in.

Fasting and low carb are sort of like aspirin. If the recommended dose of aspirin is not taking away your pain, taking the whole bottle won't help. You would require a completely different intervention, all together, because the maximum dose of aspirin is the maximum limit of whatever benefits it can provide you. Anything beyond that is detrimental. Taking an entire bottle of aspirin is going to put you in the hospital, not resolve your pain.

The same goes for fasting and low carb in general. Fasting more will not solve the problem. Cutting more carbs will not solve the problem. Doubling down on anything, will not solve the problem. You need to find solutions to the problem, not do more of what's not working.

If intermittent fasting is not producing benefits and you are actually consistently following a legitimate fasting protocol and your dietary protocol is also correct, then stop fasting. Shorten your fast to the absolute minimum you should do a day, which is a 12 hour fast. After all, you are forced to fast at some point regardless because you can't chew and swallow while you sleep. I recommend a 12 hour fast where the majority of it will be spent sleeping.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 128

1. It is not possible to gain weight on "fizzy" water, since it has 0 calories and is also flavorless. 

Carbonated drinks have been shown to stimulate ghrelin release and increase appetite. The exact mechanism for this is unknown, but consuming carbonated water, even without the artificial sweeteners or any flavor, increases body fat as if the drink contained sugar. Research is focused on the pressure caused by carbonated drinks against the stomach wall. Of course, the consensus falls back on calories and how an increase in appetite makes you eat more overall. On this blog, I don't focus on this nonsense. 

Even if you don't succumb to the increase in appetite, body fat will still increase. For this reason, I don't pay attention to what the carbon does to the stomach, but what it does to hormones overall. Ghrelin, like all other hormones does not work in a vacuum. It is part of a complicated feedback loop that effects all hormones. So, carbon causes an increase in body fat, not because it rises ghrelin in isolation and makes you eat more, but because it causes an overall obesogenic hormonal profile that effects other hormones as well, causing everything you eat, irrespective of calories, to be stored as fat. 

Stop eating and drinking novelties. There are no carbonated drinks in nature. There is only water. Water is 0 calories, 0 taste and 0 carbonation. Carbonated drinks are "party foods". Stop eating like you're at an endless birthday party. 

2. Is there a profound way of affecting leptin?

Though leptin is most commonly manipulated through nutrient availability, such as eating more frequently, the effect is temporary. Leptin is a slave to insulin and though nutrient availability can boost it in the short term, insulin over sensitivity of the fat cells, will halt leptin's benefits in the long term. After all, insulin action on fat cells is what keeps fat trapped inside and forces more to come in. Therefore, leptin is more profoundly affected, in the long term, by exercise. 

Exercise "bypasses" insulin action on the fat cells, as it now mainly focuses on the building of muscle, rather than "locking down" your fat stores. You need those fat stores for energy if you are doing the right kind of exercise. This allows leptin to go into action. You know the old adage of "If you don't use it, you lose it"? Well, your fat mass's signal to the brain is no exception to this rule. If you never burn enough fat stores, leptin simply under expresses its signal to the brain, and the brain will no longer "see" how much fat you have. Exercise helps force a reconnection. 

You need to have a purposeful exercise routine, that you follow consistently on a daily basis. Walking through the mall, while shopping, is not going to cut it. You need to go out for a walk that is moderately intense and of long duration. Taking short strolls frequently, through out the day, is just not enough to achieve this proper signaling. 

3. If low carbohydrate diets work, there wouldn't be all these different iterations of them that include additional protocols like "fasting" and "keto". 

In 1972 the Old Testament of low carbohydrate dieting was written by Robert Atkins. In 2007 the New Testament was written by Gary Taubes. Both books, together, form the 'Low Carbohydrate Bible' and from this Bible sprung the 12 Tribes of Bull Sh-t. These tribes took what was in these books, modified it to their own liking and agendas, and created their own cults. 

All of these cults believe in the 'Carbohydrate/Insulin Hypothesis' (CIH) to some degree. Basically, this hypothesis states that carbohydrate causes "hyperinsulinemia" and that eventually leads to weight gain and diabetes. That is incomplete and incorrect. We know this because: 

• Carbohydrate isn't the only macronutrient that affects insulin levels. 
• Carbohydrate is the main staple of certain cultures and produces no diabetes in them. 
• Some overweight/obese people do not have significantly high insulin levels, therefore no "hyperinsulinemia". The same is true of some lean people who have high insulin levels with no obesity. 
• Blood glucose dysregulation is the metric that tracks linearly with obesity, more so than insulin and blood glucose is affected by many things other than just diet. 
  

So, basically the reason there are so many variations to low carb is because people want to find a message that preaches what they want to hear and they toss out what they don't. Usually, what they want to hear are outlandish promises, watered down information and a way to make money. What they don't want to hear is what promises nothing, is super complicated and can't be monetized. 

4. The 'Fat Loss Blueprint Program' is much more thorough and complete than other "weight loss programs" on the market. 

Ah, yes. Though the 'Fat Loss Blueprint Program' has not been that popular, it is slowly making its rounds in the diet sphere. Well, you know how I feel about "diet programs". They won't tell you anything that you don't already know or haven't tried before. This is a known fact and why diet programs are so profitable. People just can't stop coming back to them because they can't stop being fat. Diet programs are sort of like funeral homes - inevitable and always in demand. 

The 'Fat Loss Blueprint Program' is the brainchild of Alex Leaf, a nutrition expert, researcher and teacher of nutrition at the University of Western States. So, what does this obesity resistant "athlete", with the Barbie doll model wife, have to say about the obese? Nothing you haven't heard before. But he does package it in a new modern gift box that makes it appear like a shiny new present. Unfortunately, you won't be surprised, once opened. It's the same tie you get every year but in a different color.

The good thing about Leaf is that he's not a zealot. Well, sort of not a zealot, which is very refreshing. He actually understands that obesity is much more complex than just "insulin and carbohydrates", so in that sense, he has a better understanding of the problem. After that though, nothing new is brought to the table. Leaf is a true believer of the Stephen Guyenet camp. They aren't quite a cult, but yes, they are totally a cult. 

Guyenet wrote a book called 'The Hungry Brain', which makes the claim that the modern food environment "overrides the body's evolutionary circuits", in the brain, and causes "inappropriate levels of hunger", while reducing satiety. All which, of course, facilitate "overeating". In other words, this is a very fancy way of saying - calories in/calories out (CICO). In Guyenet's defense though, he has a good knowledge of leptin and its role in obesity, which is oftentimes overlooked by others. That's not surprising though, as his PHD is in neuroscience and he has done extensive studies in the "neuroscience of obesity". It sounds so impressive! But what does it all mean? 

Well, remember that what's impressive on paper, does not always translate to practice and as we can see, none of this has helped anyone lose one pound, so it technically means that obesity is still on the rise and nothing discovered, so far, has helped curb it. Obesity is still, as of this post, a "disease" with no known cure. But, some of the good things which Leaf believes in, and modeled this program after, are the personal fat threshold theory, energy toxicity, the effects of circadian rhythms, acknowledgement of body composition and eating habits, awareness of fat cell dysfunction, etc. This is much more thorough than the failed 'Carbohydrate/Insulin Hypothesis', which no one believes in anymore, since it's been thoroughly debunked numerous times over. 

Taking all of this into consideration, Leaf came up with the 'Fat Loss Blueprint Program'. Essentially an expensive, 18 lesson program, which takes you around the world and drops you off in the same location that you were picked up in - calories in/calories out. That's right. A series of complicated lessons that go right back to the root of all diet programs - food availability. This complicated flip flop dancing routine still hasn't helped you lose a pound, whether true or not. Nobody even cares. But wait one second! How can this be possible if we already have numerous, countless, hundreds of diet programs available that use the same calories in/calories out foundation? 

Well, of course, Leaf will vouch that this program is totally different because it takes into account all of the things (mentioned above), that have been overlooked by all the other calorie centered programs in existence, which is what really sabotaged your weight loss. But wait, there's more... Um, I don't think so. 

What sabotaged your weight loss was the under expression of leptin, which is the norm when under chronic caloric restriction, particularly deficits. I am pretty sure Guyenet knows this, very well, and has still not been able to come up with a magic pill, that will prevent it from happening. But, at least, he's still working on it. I salute him for his efforts. Whenever he's not going after Taubes, he is diligently working on leptin, the brain, palatability and how to keep people from reaching for that doughnut. I can probably come up with a solution faster than he can. It's called handcuffs. Wake me up when he wins the Nobel Prize though. While we wait for that, you can pay up to use the 'Fat Loss Blueprint Program' from his minion Leaf. 

Of course, you can acquire everything you need for free, from just reading through this blog and personalizing your own program for yourself. But if you have the cash and want to try out yet another program, that promises the world and delivers nothing, go ahead and open your wallet to this one. 

5. "Too much exercise" can damage the kidneys and aggravate cortisol, which can waste your muscle. 

This is correct, but "too much exercise" is very subjective. In other words, for this to be a factor, you have to be doing one hell of a work out, chronically. This would not be of concern for the majority of the people on this blog. 

For example, training athletes can experience rhabdomyolysis (skeleton muscle breakdown), a condition in which muscle mass breaks down rapidly and spills its contents into the blood stream. Myoglobin is a protein that is contained within muscle cells, and if enough is spilled into the blood stream, it can lead to kidney failure. This condition is caused by very intense, consistent, strenuous exercise, with little to no recovery time, of which I am sure no one on this blog does or is even remotely capable of. What the people, on this blog, would be more at risk of is an exaggerated stress response from exercise, mainly through an over expression of cortisol. 

Cortisol is catabolic to muscle and will cause loss of lean muscle mass if exercise is too strenuous. Again, "strenuous" is subjective. Because the majority of people, on this blog, have metabolic syndrome and this causes an exaggerated stress response, we emphasize walking routines, a bit of body weight exercise, etc. We do not recommend high intensity interval training (HIIT), unless it's a milder, beginner's version. We also don't recommend extensive weight training or hot Yoga or anything of this nature. In other words, our emphasis is for long duration, steady state exercise of low to moderate intensity and nothing more. This is also why consuming the right protein is vital for the prevention of muscle loss from exercise. 

6. It is not scientifically correct that extended fasting will not result in the loss of lean body mass.

Normally, muscle is never lost before fat, unless there is starvation. This is why calorically restricted diets and fasting protocols for weight loss fail. The person ends up losing lean muscle mass, rather than fat. If you lose lean muscle mass, rather than fat, then you end up fatter by volume, when all is said and done. Being fatter only puts you at risk for becoming even fatter, furthering the deterioration of your blood glucose regulation and insulin, and this is why we see so many calorie tracking dieters being diagnosed with diabetes. 

The body burns through its protein (muscle) when it is under starvation. That is a proven, biological fact. Basically, the body burns fat after it exhausts the contents in its digestive tract and glycogen reserves. Once starvation is prolonged (extended time in hypoglycemia) the body uses the protein within muscle tissue as a fuel source. This is basically the only time that the human body will use protein for energy, rather than for building. This makes perfect sense because if you are starving, you want to preserve your body fat. That's what will keep you from dying and you don't really need your muscle as that expends even more energy, which you want to conserve. Muscle becomes an enemy for the starved and fat becomes their friend. That's why you can't starve yourself to thin, unless you're really ready to starve for real. Starvation is the loss of lean muscle mass. 

The explanation that "the body will not use protein because there is plenty of fat available" is a dumb marketing slogan, that is not based on what actually occurs in reality whatsoever. It's just something that appears to make sense, so therefore it must be true. Well it's not. Things aren't wished into reality just because they make sense in your head alone. This is precisely why the people who make this claim cannot prove it scientifically, except by showing you intermittent fasting studies. Well, intermittent fasting is not extended fasting and the effects of one does not translate to the other. 

The only reason intermittent fasting does not put your muscle mass at risk is because it simply does not last long enough to do so. But you have to keep in mind that metabolic syndrome changes everything and even fasts that would be considered intermittent can have very negative health effects for some metabolically ill people. This is because the metabolically ill have a very exaggerated stress response that breaks down lean muscle mass very quickly and they have a very hard time regaining it. So, these people have to be careful.

Six common beliefs addressed, Part 85

1. I find that I do better not eating excess calories, which adds body fat over time, and reduces insulin sensitivity.

I can absolutely see how not eating excess calories makes you believe you are not adding body fat, over time, since your scale weight will maintain itself or even lower at times. Unfortunately, calories are not a good way of controlling body fat in the long term. We know this because we have seen, time and time again, how low-calorie diets actually increase body fat, over time, while keeping scale weight stable or even low. So, if your target is body weight, then calories work just fine, but if your target is body fat, then not so much. Body fat should be your target because it is correct that adding on body fat, over time, reduces insulin sensitivity further. This is why there are so many "skinny", calorie counting diabetics.

For this very reason, we focus on body fat, on this blog, and not scale weight. That’s why calories won’t cut it. If you only focus on calories, you will ultimately end up ignoring your blood glucose regulation. It is better to target macronutrients. Instead of treating all calories as equal, you could instead decrease your storage "calories" (carbs and fat) and increase your non-storage "calories" (protein) and get way better results in reducing body fat and not gaining more of it with time.

Not all calories are created equal and not all calories affect blood glucose the same way. Ultimately, all you care about is what the body can use and for what, as that will affect your health, not what's burned in a calorimeter.

2. Is extended fasting a good tool for “highly insulin resistant” people?

There is no such thing as "highly insulin resistant" people. You are either insulin resistant or you’re not. You might be an individual that has been insulin resistant for a longer period of time and so have more complications, related to this adaptation, but there are no “degrees” to insulin resistance except at the tissue and organ level. Metabolic adaptations are only time dependent. The longer time you remain in this pathological adaptive state, the more risk of developing its complications.

Extended fasting is not a good tool for insulin resistance, period. It is a scam that will not address obesity, and its metabolic adaptations, one bit. Insulin resistance is the result of poor blood glucose regulation, which interferes in proper insulin release and expression. This ends in varying degrees of insulin resistance of tissues and organs. It causes super insulin sensitivity of the fat mass. Insulin resistance will worsen blood glucose regulation and blood glucose dysregulation worsens insulin resistance. It is a viscous circle. 

For this reason, you want to eliminate any lifestyle practice that interferes further in proper blood glucose regulation. This includes certain dietary, exercise and fasting practices. The longer the fast, the more it will interrupt blood glucose homeostasis because of too much time spent in hypoglycemia. Your time in hypoglycemia sets blood glucose set points to starvation levels. Meaning the body will actively try to raise blood glucose and keep it high.

3. Fasting “disposes” of the extra energy caused by hyperglucagonemia.

Fasting causes counter regulatory glucose release, but by stress hormones, so this is not really referred to as "hyperglucagonemia", though glucagon has some involvement. It is more accurate to describe it as adrenal counter regulation. Hyperglucagonemia occurs mainly postprandial.

This energy is “disposed” of where exactly? The Land of Oz or Troll World? Because energy can only be burned and extended fasting does not burn enough of it to make a bit of difference. This is because you cannot fast forever. The body has counter regulatory systems in place to slow down the burning of energy, when no energy is coming in. Short fasts do not give enough time for the body to do this, in any significant way, but extended fasting sure does. The body likes to be in energy flux, not in states of prolonged energy in or prolonged energy out.

For some reason, everyone keeps forgetting that the body always compensates. If you twist your ankle, you don’t start flying. You continue to walk, but the body simply compensates with your other leg. So, when you do extended fasting, the body doesn’t shed all of your excess body fat. It actually slows your metabolism down and prevents you from burning through your fat stores indiscriminately. This is especially true if you are overweight/obese, as your metabolism is primed and honed to spare fat mass, not get rid of it. Every time its fat mass is challenged, it doubles down on trying to keep it in place. Extended fasting does not address this mechanism at all. Not one little bit, as this mechanism is an adaptation that only responds to long term treatments. Extended fasting cannot be long term, because if it is, you die of starvation.

So, instead of “flying” during extended fasting, the body simply slows down, ramps up glucose production and then does the worst thing that you want it to ever do – store everything you eat as fat, once you eat again. See? The body simply compensated. Just like your twisted ankle is now wearing down your good hip and leg. Soon you won’t be limping, but you’ll need crutches. You never fly.

The energy you will be releasing from stress hormones, during an extended fast, will be going right back into your fat mass and then some. To make matters worse, everything you eat later, will be joining it as well. And you will eat again later. I guarantee it, unless you’re in the Gulag. This compensation by metabolism is exactly why fasting has not ever been used for the treatment of overweight/obesity, in any serious way, though we have known about fasting for millennia.

4. Everyone must find "what works for them". There are people who can fast for days, every week, for months and do great. 

Everyone must find "what works for them" in the box of things that are known to actually work. Just like every carpenter must find the right tool, at the hardware store, not the bakery. Going to the bakery will waste a lot of time and time is money. For the obese, time is crucial because as I stated before, pathological metabolic adaptations are time dependent. The longer the obese person fools around, trying protocols that will fail, they are wasting time and making their condition worse in the interim. So, when you are trying to find solutions, it is best to narrow down your options to known treatments and not quackery.

Depending on your current metabolic state, you will not see the detrimental effects of extended fasting right away. It takes time for metabolism to adapt negatively to this practice, just like it took time for it to adapt negatively to doughnuts. Adaptations don’t occur overnight. So, telling people to "find what works for them" is not helpful. You have to show people what truly works, for them to choose the proper protocol that fits their lifestyle and warn them of snake oil, so they don’t end up harming themselves in the long term.

5. Extended fasting should always be supervised by a “professional”.

No professional will supervise you with this and put their "profession" on the line, except for a professional scammer.

6. Extended fasting teaches you that you won’t die if you don’t eat for 24 hours.

And how does that help you with obesity exactly? Right. It doesn’t.

Low carb advocates create "memories" of things that never occurred. I don’t know if this is part of insulin resistance of the brain or what. It’s as if they pulled this stuff out of their dreams and now claim, up and down, that it really happened. It didn’t. Just like they "dreamed" that the Dietary Guidelines told them to eat doughnuts all of the time. That is false. The Dietary Guidelines have caloric and macronutrient restrictions. The only one who told anyone to eat doughnuts, at will, is the person selling doughnuts and the customers who decided that doughnuts are okay, because the Dietary Guidelines never made the claim that doughnuts are evil. Just because the Dietary Guidelines never claimed doughnuts are evil, does not mean that automatically makes doughnuts good. Everyone knows they aren’t. This sleight of hand doesn’t work on this blog. It’s gaslighting, plain and simple and this is a No BS and No Gaslighting zone.

I know that low carb advocates want to play rock ‘em sock ‘em robots with every single recommendation that has ever been given, so far, simply because they are bitter at their obesity, but doubling down on the stupidity will not make you slim. Eating sticks of butter to stick it to “the man”, who recommended you reduce your saturated fat intake, is not causing them a bit of harm. It’s only making you fatter, while looking crazy to boot.

The same goes for "dying if you don’t eat for 24 hours". No one has ever made that claim. This is what was actually said and why - Diabetics who are on blood glucose lowering medications, must intake dietary glucose, by eating something periodically, in order to prevent dangerous hypoglycemia. This is why it is recommended for them to eat several "small" meals a day or have snacks between main meals, in order to keep blood glucose steady. "Small" means calorically restricted, since caloric restriction is the conventional, universal method of controlling nutrient intake.

Several "small" meals a day has also been used to stimulate leptin and cause weight loss. Of course, the weight loss is only temporary as the body, one again, puts a halt on anything that challenges its fat mass. But it does work in the short term! Several small meals a day will cause initial weight loss, through the manipulation of leptin in individuals who still have intact leptin senstviity. Just like caloric restriction causes temporary weight loss, through the manipulation of insulin.

Doubling down and not eating for 3 days, just to prove that these recommendations are false is utter stupidity, since all you're doing is causing metabolic damage in the long term. So, low carb advocates not only like to sacrifice themselves, to try and prove something “to the world”, but they like to sacrifice their followers as well. Don’t be a sacrificial lamb upon the altar of BS. You will only end up hurting yourself.