Hi Fat Low Carb - When does the magic happen?

[Jizmo]

Dear god, what the hell in excess glycogenesis!

The brain gets a portion of its energy from ketone bodies when glucose is less available (e.g., during fasting, strenuous exercise, low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet and in neonates). In the event of low blood glucose, most other tissues have additional energy sources besides ketone bodies (such as fatty acids), but the brain has an obligatory requirement for some glucose

Glycogenesis will happen regardless for brain function!!!  So again you are wrong. The brain can not survive on ketones alone.

no, the brain can not use long chain fatty acids for fuel.
ketone bodies CAN be used for fuel by the brain and the brain does not need glucose to survive:
"The brain cannot use long-chain fatty acids for energy because they are completely albumin-bound and cannot cross the blood–brain barrier. Not all medium-chain fatty acids are bound to albumin. The unbound medium-chain fatty acids are soluble in the blood and can cross the blood–brain barrier.[11] The ketone bodies produced in the liver can also cross the blood–brain barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into acetyl-CoA and used in the citric acid cycle"

this means that ketone bodies can essentially function as substitute for glucose.

Not saying you are wrong, but I would like to specifically what you mean. I am speaking of inflammation of the endothelial wall.

i would be inclined to say that the strong insulin response from high glycemic / simple carbs play a role in inflammation and complex carbohydrates therefore lead to less inflammation but i have to admit that im not well versed enough on that specific topic

[Disgusted]

no, the brain can not use long chain fatty acids for fuel.
ketone bodies CAN be used for fuel by the brain and the brain does not need glucose to survive:
"The brain cannot use long-chain fatty acids for energy because they are completely albumin-bound and cannot cross the blood–brain barrier. Not all medium-chain fatty acids are bound to albumin. The unbound medium-chain fatty acids are soluble in the blood and can cross the blood–brain barrier.[11] The ketone bodies produced in the liver can also cross the blood–brain barrier. In the brain, these ketone bodies are then incorporated into acetyl-CoA and used in the citric acid cycle"

this means that ketone bodies can essentially function as substitute for glucose.

i would be inclined to say that the strong insulin response from high glycemic / simple carbs play a role in inflammation and complex carbohydrates therefore lead to less inflammation but i have to admit that im not well versed enough on that specific topic

I never said the brain can use LCFA for fuel, but the brain can not survive solely on ketones hence the reason for glycogenesis.

Inflammation of the arterial wall comes from excess consumption of carbohydrates. Cholesterol will "stick" to the wall because of this inflammation like glue causing blockage over time. Blood levels of cholesterol are meaningless as far as heart disease is concerned.  Remember all carbs break down into glucose in this instance it doesn't matter where they come from.

[Jizmo]

I never said the brain can use LCFA for fuel, but the brain can not survive solely on ketones hence the reason for glycogenesis.

Inflammation of the arterial wall comes from excess consumption of carbohydrates. Cholesterol will "stick" to the wall because of this inflammation like glue causing blockage over time. Blood levels of cholesterol are meaningless as far as heart disease is concerned.  Remember all carbs break down into glucose in this instance it doesn't matter where they come from.

you said the brain can not use fat for fuel. which is partially true because it can not use long chain fatty acids for fuel.
it CAN use ketone bodies (product of fat consumption) for fuel.
i disagree on the point that the brain cant survive solely on ketones.
thats what ketones are actually for. i wouldnt mind if you could prove me wrong with a source though

gluconeogenesis is the survival mechanism that takes place if you eat no fats or carbs... = glucose is produced from protein in order not to die
ketosis is the suvival mechanism that takes place if you eat no carbs... which is a much more natural condition (but im not one of those paleo guys).
 ketosis is much more energy efficient than gluconeogenesis too.

strongly agree on your second point, i know that and i know you can have the worst cholesterol profile ever without having any issues as long as there is no systemic inflammation present.
but id assume systemic inflammation is caused by excess SUGARS, not carbohydrates. you say inflammation comes from excess carbohydrate consumption... if you consume 100g of dextrose then there ARE plenty of excess carbohydrates in your blood, since its a simple carb and absorbed extremely quickly.
if you consume 100g carbs from oatmeal though then it takes your body several hours to break down the complex carbs into glucose and this results in a MUCH LOWER glucose influx at once.
sooo the release of 100g glucose OVER lets say 3 hours FROM OATMEAL is of course MUCH different than the immediate release of 100g straight glucose (from soda or whatever)
you say EXCESSIVE carbohydrates cause inflammation.
100g straight glucose are excessive.
100g glucose spread out over 3 hours (from digestion of oatmeal) might NOT be excessive and therefore NOT cause inflammation.
 thats why i say complex carbs have a different effect.

edit: okay ive read up, its been proven that the brain can use fat (ketones) for approx. 75% of its energy requirements. it needs about 20-30g glucose which can be synthesized from various sources (most likely amino acids, as you said).
so youre correct on the point that the brain needs SOME (albeit only a miniscule amount) of glucose to function. the main portion of the energy requirements can be covered from dietary fat though.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22591/

[Disgusted]

you said the brain can not use fat for fuel. which is partially true because it can not use long chain fatty acids for fuel.
it CAN use ketone bodies (product of fat consumption) for fuel.
i disagree on the point that the brain cant survive solely on ketones.
thats what ketones are actually for. i wouldnt mind if you could prove me wrong with a source though

gluconeogenesis is the survival mechanism that takes place if you eat no fats or carbs... = glucose is produced from protein in order not to die
ketosis is the suvival mechanism that takes place if you eat no carbs... which is a much more natural condition (but im not one of those paleo guys).
 ketosis is much more energy efficient than gluconeogenesis too.

strongly agree on your second point, i know that and i know you can have the worst cholesterol profile ever without having any issues as long as there is no systemic inflammation present.
but id assume systemic inflammation is caused by excess SUGARS, not carbohydrates. you say inflammation comes from excess carbohydrate consumption... if you consume 100g of dextrose then there ARE plenty of excess carbohydrates in your blood, since its a simple carb and absorbed extremely quickly.
if you consume 100g carbs from oatmeal though then it takes your body several hours to break down the complex carbs into glucose and this results in a MUCH LOWER glucose influx at once.
sooo the release of 100g glucose OVER lets say 3 hours FROM OATMEAL is of course MUCH different than the immediate release of 100g straight glucose (from soda or whatever)
you say EXCESSIVE carbohydrates cause inflammation.
100g straight glucose are excessive.
100g glucose spread out over 3 hours (from digestion of oatmeal) might NOT be excessive and therefore NOT cause inflammation.
 thats why i say complex carbs have a different effect.

edit: okay ive read up, its been proven that the brain can use fat (ketones) for approx. 75% of its energy requirements. it needs about 20-30g glucose which can be synthesized from various sources (most likely amino acids, as you said).
so youre correct on the point that the brain needs SOME (albeit only a miniscule amount) of glucose to function. the main portion of the energy requirements can be covered from dietary fat though.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22591/

OK since the brain does need a certain amount of glucose and it has to get it by way of glycogenesis then by definition glycogenesis does not only happen in the absence of fats and carbs (highlighted above). As a side not, no fats and no carbs = death.

As a side not, I am NOT talking about in I inflammation as it pertains to insulin response. I am talking about too many sugars whether it be from simple or complex as it pertains to inflammation to the endothelial wall.

[Jizmo]

OK since the brain does need a certain amount of glucose and it has to get it by way of glycogenesis then by definition glycogenesis does not only happen in the absence of fats and carbs (highlighted above). As a side not, no fats and no carbs = death.

As a side not, I am NOT talking about in I inflammation as it pertains to insulin response. I am talking about too many sugars whether it be from simple or complex as it pertains to inflammation to the endothelial wall.

yes, i am aware of that. protein alone can not nourish the human body. wasnt that called rabbit starvation or so? where some inuit group only ate lean rabbit meat and they all died, because even though there was an abundance of calories, it was pretty much protein only.

i understand your opinion about the inflammation. however as i explained, i would think that the AMOUNT of "too many sugars" as you call it would be MUCH different with complex vs simple carbohydrates. as i said, the "release" rate of glucose is vastly different and therefore 1g complex carbohydrate should have a much different effect on inflammation than 1g simple carbohydrate.

[Disgusted]

yes, i am aware of that. protein alone can not nourish the human body. wasnt that called rabbit starvation or so? where some inuit group only ate lean rabbit meat and they all died, because even though there was an abundance of calories, it was pretty much protein only.

i understand your opinion about the inflammation. however as i explained, i would think that the AMOUNT of "too many sugars" as you call it would be MUCH different with complex vs simple carbohydrates. as i said, the "release" rate of glucose is vastly different and therefore 1g complex carbohydrate should have a much different effect on inflammation than 1g simple carbohydrate.

Can't disagree with that if everybody would cut out all added sugars we'd  be much healthier. Probably 50% of the calories or maybe more are just in the form of table sugars fructose or added sugars.

[Thin Lizzy]

Get disagree with that if everybody would cut out all added sugars we'd  be much healthier. Probably 50% of the calories or maybe more are just in the form of table sugars fructose or added sugars.

Average American caloric intake is ~3.7k, with carbs intake in the 350-400 gram range. It should be in the 150-200 gram range.

[Erik C]

Average American caloric intake is ~3.7k, with carbs intake in the 350-400 gram range. It should be in the 150-200 gram range.

It should be zero. There is no need for carbs in the human diet. Scientifically, there are essential fatty acids, as in fats, and essential amino acids, as in proteins. They're essential because that is what your body needs for strength and health, they're what your body is made from. There are no essential carbohydrates, none. You don't need to eat carbohydrates at all, in fact they cause weakness and ill health.

[Thin Lizzy]

It should be zero. There is no need for carbs in the human diet. Scientifically, there are essential fatty acids, as in fats, and essential amino acids, as in proteins. They're essential because that is what your body needs for strength and health, they're what your body is made from. There are no essential carbohydrates, none. You don't need to eat carbohydrates at all, in fact they cause weakness and ill health.

Ketosis advocates point out that there is no essential carb and that carbs are not necessary for survival.

While this is true, that doesn't mean that zero carbs is optimal.

There's a reason it's so easy to get kicked out of Ketosis. The brain's preferred fuel source is glucose. Moreover, Glycogen is a better fuel for high intensity work than fat.

Bottom line is that carbs have their place. The problem is over consumption.

[Erik C]

Ketosis advocates point out that there is no essential carb and that carbs are not necessary for survival.

While this is true, that doesn't mean that zero carbs is optimal.

There's a reason it's so easy to get kicked out of Ketosis. The brain's preferred fuel source is glucose. Moreover, Glycogen is a better fuel for high intensity work than fat.

Bottom line is that carbs have their place. The problem is over consumption.

The brain's preferred fuel is ketones. Dietary glucose acts as a pollutant that interferes with the brain using ketones for fuel. All brain conditions and diseases respond excellently to a keto diet. Epilepsy, Autism, ADHD, ADD, mental illness, brain injuries, all get better on a high fat keto type diet. The reverse would be true if glucose was the best brain food. Eat sugar and your brain suffers, that's a fact.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15469884. You can find more examples of brain problems improving, on keto diets, listed there. You won't find any that shows brain improvement on a high carb diet.

High carb diet makes you mentally slow. It takes longer to do things, you think slower, it slows your reflexes and your reaction time.

Here is a very cautiously worded blog, on the Scientific American website, that may interest some here: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/10/01/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/

Glycogen is not a better fuel source for high intensity workouts. Glycogen, as with glucose, interferes with the body's ability to use ketones for energy. The whole point of keto diet is to get the body to burn fats, instead of sugars. Endurance athletes are switching to keto diets.

[Thong Maniac]

The brain's preferred fuel is ketones. Dietary glucose acts as a pollutant that interferes with the brain using ketones for fuel. All brain conditions and diseases respond excellently to a keto diet. Epilepsy, Autism, ADHD, ADD, mental illness, brain injuries, all get better on a high fat keto type diet. The reverse would be true if glucose was the best brain food. Eat sugar and your brain suffers, that's a fact.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15469884. You can find more examples of brain problems improving, on keto diets, listed there. You won't find any that shows brain improvement on a high carb diet.

High carb diet makes you mentally slow. It takes longer to do things, you think slower, it slows your reflexes and your reaction time.

Here is a very cautiously worded blog, on the Scientific American website, that may interest some here: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/10/01/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/

Glycogen is not a better fuel source for high intensity workouts. Glycogen, as with glucose, interferes with the body's ability to use ketones for energy. The whole point of keto diet is to get the body to burn fats, instead of sugars. Endurance athletes are switching to keto diets.

Erik, im on board bro. But,
It sounds a little too good to be true

[Erik C]

Erik, im on board bro. But,
It sounds a little too good to be true

A little to good to be true? What's that supposed to mean? Once you get over all the BS about: dying without eating carbs, and having no energy without carbs, and having no muscle strength without eating carbs, then you lose the the body fat and get a great cut look. It's still not easy. You still have to do the work, and eat big on fats and proteins. It can be done. But only you can do it for you.

[Disgusted]

The brain's preferred fuel is ketones. Dietary glucose acts as a pollutant that interferes with the brain using ketones for fuel. All brain conditions and diseases respond excellently to a keto diet. Epilepsy, Autism, ADHD, ADD, mental illness, brain injuries, all get better on a high fat keto type diet. The reverse would be true if glucose was the best brain food. Eat sugar and your brain suffers, that's a fact.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15469884. You can find more examples of brain problems improving, on keto diets, listed there. You won't find any that shows brain improvement on a high carb diet.

High carb diet makes you mentally slow. It takes longer to do things, you think slower, it slows your reflexes and your reaction time.

Here is a very cautiously worded blog, on the Scientific American website, that may interest some here: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/10/01/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/

Glycogen is not a better fuel source for high intensity workouts. Glycogen, as with glucose, interferes with the body's ability to use ketones for energy. The whole point of keto diet is to get the body to burn fats, instead of sugars. Endurance athletes are switching to keto diets.

I do agree that the body does NOT need carbs to survive, but a few points I'd like to make.

First, the preferred source of fuel for the brain and body is carbs. When giving the body both carbs and fats it will pick carbs first this is also true for the brain. Once you take carbs away the body can still thrive on fats, but that doesn't mean it's the "preferred" choice.

As far as the brain you can "train" your brain to need less glucose, roughly 30 grams per day and the rest can utilized from ketones. Just because carbs are excluded and we can use fats as energy doesn't mean it's not the bodies preferred choice. I'm NOT talking about the average sugar laden diet, but a more healthy diet one may have eaten many years ago before HFCS was added to everything.

Also, just because a certain brain disease responds well to a restriction of carbs (again they are dealing with people who are eating an insane amount of sugar per year) doesn't mean carbs are damaging to a normal healthy brain. When you use the term "high carb diet" I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I will assume unless otherwise corrected that you are referring to the average American diet where people consume up to 140 pounds of sugar per year.

If we go back in time where the average yearly sugar consumption was say 10 pounds a year of sugar then you would see a lot less diseases that exist in present day and these studies that are done would not be valid due to such low sugar consumption. So how much heart disease, epilepsy, ADD, autism, obesity would we see if we ate a diet void of any outside sources of added sugar??? What if our diets consisted of just 20% of natural sources of carbohydrates??  

All this data that is compiled using todays diet as a standard is pretty much worthless if we ate like we should IE far less sugar!! Carbs are NOT the enemy unless eaten to such an extreme amounts like they are today.

[Erik C]

I do agree that the body does NOT need carbs to survive, but a few points I'd like to make.

First, the preferred source of fuel for the brain and body is carbs. When giving the body both carbs and fats it will pick carbs first this is also true for the brain. Once you take carbs away the body can still thrive on fats, but that doesn't mean it's the "preferred" choice.

As far as the brain you can "train" your brain to need less glucose, roughly 30 grams per day and the rest can utilized from ketones. Just because carbs are excluded and we can use fats as energy doesn't mean it's not the bodies preferred choice. I'm NOT talking about the average sugar laden diet, but a more healthy diet one may have eaten many years ago before HFCS was added to everything.

Also, just because a certain brain disease responds well to a restriction of carbs (again they are dealing with people who are eating an insane amount of sugar per year) doesn't mean carbs are damaging to a normal healthy brain. When you use the term "high carb diet" I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I will assume unless otherwise corrected that you are referring to the average American diet where people consume up to 140 pounds of sugar per year.

If we go back in time where the average yearly sugar consumption was say 10 pounds a year of sugar then you would see a lot less diseases that exist in present day and these studies that are done would not be valid due to such low sugar consumption. So how much heart disease, epilepsy, ADD, autism, obesity would we see if we ate a diet void of any outside sources of added sugar??? What if our diets consisted of just 20% of natural sources of carbohydrates??  

All this data that is compiled using todays diet as a standard is pretty much worthless if we ate like we should IE far less sugar!! Carbs are NOT the enemy unless eaten to such an extreme amounts like they are today.

Children eat sugar as their "preferred" food, it's not the best food for them. Same with the human body in general. Reread my post that you quoted. In the absence of sugar the brain uses ketones. Go back before the Neolithic Revolution of farming. How did Paleolithic Man get a year round supply of carbs in temperate climates or arctic climates? People in Northern climates developed higher intelligence levels precisely because there were few carbs in their diet. In Africa, where IQs are generally low, the high carb diet was possible year round. But, even in Africa, the pygmies are of lower intelligence than the low African average. They have one of the highest, of high carb diets, searching year round for honey and have done so for tens of thousands of years, and have degenerated both in intellect and physical size, because of their high carb diet. As I pointed out before, High fat diet helps the brain, and heals the brain. There is no help for any brain condition from eating more sugar or carbs. If glucose were the optimal brain food, then the reverse would be true.

You don't require carbohydrates in your diet, and eating them is detrimental to your over all health. Eskimos, Siberian Tungus peoples, Laplanders, all ate high fat and protein diets for tens of thousands of years, under much harsher conditions than exist today, and survived and were healthy, until they adopted the imported, high carb diet.

[Disgusted]

Children eat sugar as their "preferred" food, it's not the best food for them. Same with the human body in general. Reread my post that you quoted. In the absence of sugar the brain uses ketones. Go back before the Neolithic Revolution of farming. How did Paleolithic Man get a year round supply of carbs in temperate climates or arctic climates? People in Northern climates developed higher intelligence levels precisely because there were few carbs in their diet. In Africa, where IQs are generally low, the high carb diet was possible year round. But, even in Africa, the pygmies are of lower intelligence than the low African average. They have one of the highest, of high carb diets, searching year round for honey and have done so for tens of thousands of years, and have degenerated both in intellect and physical size, because of their high carb diet. As I pointed out before, High fat diet helps the brain, and heals the brain. There is no help for any brain condition from eating more sugar or carbs. If glucose were the optimal brain food, then the reverse would be true.

You don't require carbohydrates in your diet, and eating them is detrimental to your over all health. Eskimos, Siberian Tungus peoples, Laplanders, all ate high fat and protein diets for tens of thousands of years, under much harsher conditions than exist today, and survived and were healthy, until they adopted the imported, high carb diet.

Agreed on everything you said, but what I have highlighted I would have ended it with, while cutting out all sources of high fructose corn syrup and any other bad sources of sugar. Again, many of these diets are using far too many simple carbs. Insulin is an aging hormone so keeping it low is key to living a long healthy life.

[Erik C]

Agreed on everything you said, but what I have highlighted I would have ended it with, while cutting out all sources of high fructose corn syrup and any other bad sources of sugar. Again, many of these diets are using far too many simple carbs. Insulin is an aging hormone so keeping it low is key to living a long healthy life.

You would have ended it there, but I didn't, because the rest of what I posted is true. Carbs are a detriment to human health. Glucose is bad for the brain. Insulin is an aging hormone, and the only way to keep insulin low is to keep carbohydrates out of your body, because sugars and starches spike insulin levels high every time you eat them.

[Disgusted]

You would have ended it there, but I didn't, because the rest of what I posted is true. Carbs are a detriment to human health. Glucose is bad for the brain. Insulin is an aging hormone, and the only way to keep insulin low is to keep carbohydrates out of your body, because sugars and starches spike insulin levels high every time you eat them.

I'm not in agreement the all carbs are detrimental to ones health. There are plenty of people who I personally know that are in their 90's and eat carbs. I'm not saying they are eating copious amounts of sugar but they eat plenty of fruits and veggies.

[Erik C]

I'm not in agreement the all carbs are detrimental to ones health. There are plenty of people who I personally know that are in their 90's and eat carbs. I'm not saying they are eating copious amounts of sugar but they eat plenty of fruits and veggies.

Anecdotal evidence. I once heard an interview with a 106 year old jazz musician who smoked and drank a lot, and claimed he lived so long because he never ate any food that wasn't fried, because frying food killed all the germs in it.

[Disgusted]

Anecdotal evidence. I once heard an interview with a 106 year old jazz musician who smoked and drank a lot, and claimed he lived so long because he never ate any food that wasn't fried, because frying food killed all the germs in it.

How many octogenarians are zero carb eaters? I'm not a carb fan but I'm not convinced that eating an apple or some green beans will shorten my life span. The fact is that it's all anecdotal evidence until we start to see many people who are zero carb eaters living an extremely long life span. So far there are none. I've read a lot of interviews from people who have lived over 100 and they all have their certain ways of eating. None of them that I can recall ever ate zero carb.

[Erik C]

How many octogenarians are zero carb eaters? I'm not a carb fan but I'm not convinced that eating an apple or some green beans will shorten my life span.

The guy that originally got me interested in the subject was 92. I only met him that one time. He was fit, stood up straight, had all his marbles, and if he had dyed his hair he could of passed for 55 easy. When I found out how old he was, I naturally asked him what he did to be in such fine shape. I also asked him for some proof of his age. He had a drivers license to prove it. Turns out his first job after getting out of the military was in a sugar refinery! When he saw what went on in the sugar refining process, he quit eating sugar right there and then. He was way ahead of he current keto trend. So he was on a low carb diet, way less than 10% carbs per meal, for 70 years when I met him. As I said, he was in great shape for his age. I've seen a lot of 90+ year old's, and they look it, emaciated, no muscle, just bones and sagging skin, wrinkles on wrinkles, no brain power. Alive, but that's about it. I want to be like the guy I met, when I get to be 92.

[Disgusted]

The guy that originally got me interested in the subject was 92. I only met him that one time. He was fit, stood up straight, had all his marbles, and if he had dyed his hair he could of passed for 55 easy. When I found out how old he was, I naturally asked him what he did to be in such fine shape. I also asked him for some proof of his age. He had a drivers license to prove it. Turns out his first job after getting out of the military was in a sugar refinery! When he saw what went on in the sugar refining process, he quit eating sugar right there and then. He was way ahead of he current keto trend. So he was on a low carb diet, way less than 10% carbs per meal, for 70 years when I met him. As I said, he was in great shape for his age. I've seen a lot of 90+ year old's, and they look it, emaciated, no muscle, just bones and sagging skin, wrinkles on wrinkles, no brain power. Alive, but that's about it. I want to be like the guy I met, when I get to be 92.

I'm not doubting he looked good for his age but I doubt he looked 55. I personally eat very low carb and I'm always told I don't look my age so I totally agree sugar kills and ages. What I don't understand is how do 100's of thousands of people live to be 80 and in good health eating mainly carbs?

[Erik C]

I'm not doubting he looked good for his age but I doubt he looked 55. I personally eat very low carb and I'm always told I don't look my age so I totally agree sugar kills and ages. What I don't understand is how do 100's of thousands of people live to be 80 and in good health eating mainly carbs?

They don't! They're not in great shape at all. They're surviving, not living. The guy I told you about didn't have any more wrinkles, than a forty year old. He didn't have age spots. His shoulders were square, not rounded. He wasn't bent over. Didn't have a cane or a walker. I don't know where you got the idea that there are 100s of thousands of people in their 80s who ate mainly carbs, who are in good health. Seems your opinion of good health in one's 80s, is just being alive in your 80s. Most of the 80 year olds that I've seen, look like shit, and I'd rather be dead, than be them.

[Coach is Back!]

Say u were eating 2600 kcals of brown rice, oats, meats, etc.

Switched to hi fat, low carb, mod protein of the same calorie amount of 2600...

Will you be looking much different after a month or so, or does it take a long time to see benefits in terms of leanness, etc

You'll get shredded and stay strong as fuck.

[Disgusted]

They don't! They're not in great shape at all. They're surviving, not living. The guy I told you about didn't have any more wrinkles, than a forty year old. He didn't have age spots. His shoulders were square, not rounded. He wasn't bent over. Didn't have a cane or a walker. I don't know where you got the idea that there are 100s of thousands of people in their 80s who ate mainly carbs, who are in good health. Seems your opinion of good health in one 80s, is just being alive in your 80s. Most of the 80 year olds that I've seen, look like shit, and I'd rather be dead, than be them.

Where in any of my posts did I say the eight year olds that I know were not in good health? I know one 80 year old lady right now who has never been to a Dr other than a knee replacement walks the mall every week for two hours and shops and eats mainly TV dinners. My aunt lived to be 93 and she drank a six pack of Pepsi every day no exaggeration. She cut her own grass every week and the first time she went to a doctor is when she fell she was 89 years old. I could go on and on. All of the older people that I do now that are healthy and there are plenty of them eat a normal diet. The ones that I know who are sick are either smokers or drinkers. I still choose to eat a very low carb diet but I would still love to know why I see a lot of older people were very healthy And eat what ever they want. Oh and one other thing that these people seem to have in common is none of them are overweight to any great degree. Can you find me one person over 80 years old That eats is zero carb diet and has For at least 20 years?

[BigRo]

Erica C a paleo nut and atheist nazi