DaleE

Ya, so where's the feedback? You've had 2 days to read , so what's the verdict? Do I order one or not?

Would it have been more acceptable if it was published in Fair Lady? or Runners World? An opinion piece is just that ... opinion. Makes no difference where it's published. Not everything that is published in SAMJ is perfect science ... some stuff is peer reviewed, some is not .... Noakes' piece was not. If you really have an issue with what they publish ... It's the editor who decides what gets printed, not the contributors.

For those who may be interested ... Noakes and fellow authors of his new book Meal Revolution are doing a talk at SSI on 2 Dec. Call 021 4616808 to book a place. No charge, but not lots of space left apparently. If anyone does, go, let me know as I'll be there and it's always nice to physically meet the folk we interact with in the virtual world!

Hba1c is a measure of average glucose for 2-3 months. The logic being that if you can control it, then there is very little chance of metabolic syndrome / diabetes. 5.1 is a good result. From what I've read, 4.8-5.2 is the optimal range. Your doctor's thinking of "<6 is ok" seems to be a bit old school and based on studies done where the subjects were eating a higher carb diet than you are.

Been some very interesting comments in the last few days ... thanks to all for the input. One of the common phrases we hear and use is: "when you are fat adapted". So, how do you know you are fat adapted? It's not just being in ketosis .. that anyone can achieve within days. I have always thought of it as roughly 3-4 months of consistent lchf, but that's just based on personal experience and 'feel'. Can it be measured?

hmmm, not sure I agree. From a personal n=1, non scientific, non double blinded, not randomised anything test .... In March of this year I started going to gym again. It's a boot camp style high intensity hour twice a week with a personal trainer who clearly hates me I can find no difference in performance for any of the following: Performance based on feeling and HR 1. have eaten breakfast that day (gym sessions always at lunch) 2. last meal was supper the night before 3. last meal was lunch the day before. Always only had water in the time between meals. Meal composition was strictly lchf with about 60g Carb daily, no alcohol, carb from green sources and dairy only. What I did notice was blood ketone levels were always higher after fasted exercise but about the same before the exercise. I don't understand why this happens and could not find anything on the web about it. BG levels not affected. So, like I said, it's just a simple n=1 test that proves bugger-all except that the trainer still hates me As an aside, one of the benefits of lchf for me is a total lack of reliance on food. I've stopped structuring my day around meals - just eat when I'm hungry, exercise or not.

I think that the benefit of reduced need for fuelling for long distance athletes is fairly well established by now. What is really interesting about JS's comments is that he was always of the opinion that "lchf makes you slow" and you had to have carbs to race. From what I recall, 'his athletes' are not back-of-the-pack types, so if he is now training folk with this regime, am curious about what has changed his mind. Also, it's really encouraging when doctors are prepared to look at new ideas and try them out for themselves. I recall having conversations about lchf with him 2 years ago (I did rehab with him) and at the time he was very sceptical, so kudos to him for being open minded.

Cool. well done. So, care to give us a rough idea of what your typical eating plan looks like?

Just a guess, coffee is a stimulant .... is that not possibly upsetting the satiety signal? 2 coffees in one sitting maybe one too many.

Nope, that's not what I said. I said it's a great food, but not as a cure all for inflammation ... in other words, don't make it something it's not. You and I clearly disagree on what these studies prove, that's ok. I don't believe that anyone here is following the kind of hi fat high carb diets used for the studies (go have another look at the kinds of fat they ate), so I question how applicable it is to those of us who follow a LCHF diet where the fats are of the healthy variety. Also, some time there was discussion of hi-protein diets. The general consensus here was that hi-protein is not good ... you're preaching to the converted. I'm not sure if that is supposed to be an insult, or a general comment on mankind Yes, everyone has their own beliefs based on their history or circumstances - in all things in life. I have a belief of what works for me, as do you. That's what makes debate worthwhile. No-one is ignoring the evidence, but in this case, I believe the study and the resulting evidence is of little value and I have expressed my opinion as such. You're free to disagree.

Yup, and if you ever have someone tell you marg is better than butter, just go visit a marg factory ... it's grey gloop until they add the yellow colourant.

Hmmm ... neither of these actually show that OJ is good for you ... In the first one, the question they were trying to answer was wether "caloric intake in any form induces oxidative stress and inflammation and whether the type of response is determined by the source of these calories" In other words, they are taking a scientific look at the question of "are all calories equal?" The answer is clearly "No". they compared OJ to glucose and found that the OJ has less inflammatory response to the glucose. It does not mean that OJ is good for you ... just better than glucose! The second one is a bit confusing ... confusing because you wonder who pays for this sort of weird logic! Let me explain ... They give a bunch of folk a Hi Fat Hi Carb meal "egg-muffin and sausage-muffin sandwiches and 2 hash-brown potatoes" Any dietician would tell you to stay away from that sort of stuff, but anyway, they made the subjects eat this junk and then measured inflammatory response which was significant. No real surprises there.(I could have told them that for free ​They then gave the folk OJ to drink and the inflammatory response was reduced. So ... What they have proved is that OJ reduces the effects of junk food ... can you hear the approaching marketing campaign? What they have not proved (actually didn't TRY to do), is that if you eat correctly, OJ will have any effect. In other words, if you eat non-inflamitory foods, what does the OJ do? ​Now. please don't think I hate OJ. I think it's a great food, full of vitamins and flavanoids and other good things ... just don't try to make it something it's not.

Nope Ok, ok, ... perhaps if you're racing then I would agree, but not if you're doing <80% HRmax training. The theory says you're burning fat at that level.

Nice! 2 Quick questions if I may ... 1. what do you consider VLCHF? i.e. how many carbs per day are you actually eating? 2. what's the source of those carbs?

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks

A VERY short beginners summary for you to answer some of your questions ... Yes, once fat adapted you can go longer without the need to refuel. this both on the bike and during daily living. For endurance riding, fat and protein may be sufficient for you. For sprinting you will probably benefit from some carbs directly before or during the race. My top 5 list for you ... ok, i cheated, it's a top 7 1. stop eating sugar. All sugar. including soft drinks 2. stop eating cakes, refined carbs, flour, bread, etc 3. give all the beer to your neighbour ... develop a taste for red wine or whiskey 4. stay away from all corn based oils (aka vegetable oils), anything made with them (marg, mayo, etc) or anything cooked in them 5. try to eat as much real or whole foods as possible. If it was not alive recently, then give it a miss. 6. start eating healthy fats. coconut oil, butter, avo oil, cream, etc 7. understand that if you do 1-6 you will feel lousy for about 1-2 weeks while your body adapts ... no way past this ... just guts it out! If you don't run screaming at the though of 1-7, you may be in for a very interesting dietary experience go look at http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf for a far better understanding - it's an easy read.

When doing you're research into long term effects, just make sure you realise that some of the theoretical issues with LCHF are based on assumptions of Very Low Carb diets (VLC), i.e 20g per day or less. These are normally medically supervised diets to treat some other issue (cancer, altsheimers, seizures, etc). It's really unlikely that anyone here will be consistently that low for a long period of time. happymartins approach of using VLC for weight loss for short periods is possible, but long term it's really hard to maintain. 50-100g/day is a more realistic sustainable value for someone who eats predominantly LCHF with veggies, salad and the occasional good carb or even 'bad carb' thrown in ... and if all your blood results improve steadily over time at that level, then I struggle to see how this can be a bad thing.

Tom, Sad to see you go - have appreciated your input to this thread. It's a real tragedy when folk who have much to offer feel not wanted or pressure to leave these discussions. Rant on .... The more I learn, the more I come to agree with the statement in bold above ... if it works for you, stick with it ... I cannot for the life of me understand all the hype / vitriol / anger / resentment / fighting that goes around ANY diet discussion. When will we collectively realise that each person is different, and just because one approach does not work for you personally, does not mean it is something to be reviled and despised? What this debate has done over the last year is removed any trust I had in the medical community at large - how do they expect to engender trust from their patients when they are so closed minded to discussing things in a positive light? Nutrition is not a religion ... BUT ... I'm not sure it's really science either! RCT's, double blind trials, observational studies, etc, etc, are all (imho) only valid for the folk in the study ... how do I draw any conclusions for me personally based on a trial done in europe where the genetic makeup is different to mine??? Look at the similarities and think critically about how it MAY apply to you; then make changes to your diet and measure the results. On the positive side of all this debate and anger is the fact that more and more folk are becoming aware of the issues around sugar, unhealthy carbs, fast food, trans fats, whole foods, diabetes, etc Almost every day I find myself having a conversation about diet with someone looking for more information .. and what is really exciting is that I'm starting to hear folk speak about diet for reasons of real health, not just weight loss. I know the difference may seem small to some, but to me that's a huge win. Rant off ...

Nice, thanks.

At the risk of preaching to the choir, I thought I'd share my list of "lchf commandments". It's a mix of what I believe (and practice) and an attempt to provoke thought. I often have folk ask about my health / diet, so I put this list together and while back (and keep adding to it). I send it to them ... if they run screaming then that the end of the matter ... if they don't, then we can talk. So, comments, additions, thoughts? LCHF is actually LC, Moderate Protein ,HF Not all fats are good, not all carbs are bad Sugar, processed foods, grains and hydrogenated oils are the enemy. Aim for BG levels 4.8 - 5.2 Fasting works better when intermittent ie no pattern Alcohol slows weight loss but is good for the heart (in moderation) If it was not alive recently, don't eat it. Eat, wait and feel. If you feel good, eat it again. If you feel lousy, don't eat it. Cheating for 1-2 meals per week will not kill you. Sustained junk will. Exercise for fun and stress relief. Don't bother trying to exercise for weight loss … you can't outrun your mouth. Train 90% slow, 10% explosive. Race fast. Have fun. Separate hydration and energy source when exercising. For every scientific study there is another one that disproves it. Read them all and think critically. Be guided by what but what Grandma and the Bushmen ate. Coffee and dark chocolate are (delicious) stimulants. Go easy. Every writer, blogger, doctor, scientist has an agenda. Consider your own health. Look after n=1, not the whole population curve. Inflammation, not cholesterol, is your enemy. Stop stressing about the small things. Loose the idea that each meal has to be a culinary delight. Eat to live.

Htones post above is (imho) right on the button. Perhaps I can just add the following: Noakes does not seem terribly interested in ketones simply because he is looking at lchf from a diabetes view, and therefor Blood Sugar (BG) is his focus. It is of course known that there is a reasonable correlation between ketones (talking beta-hydroxybutarate blood ketones here) and BG, but his view (I asked him) is that it's simpler to focus on the BG, also easier for folk to understand ... and therefor you get a better result. Personally, I tried "chasing" the ketone numbers for a while but have largely stopped. I still measure occasionally just for kicks but after a while you do get to know when you're in ketosis just by how you are feeling. I have taken the Noakes approach of thinking of blood sugar and ingested sugar and the ketone levels follow naturally. My "issue" is heart, not diabetes, but the logic and health markers are the same. If you have any interest in blood sugar, suggest you have a look at some of Jenny Rhule's work. http://www.bloodsugar101.com Lastly, on the subject of 'cheats' .... 1. I found that the longer/deeper you are in ketosis the easier to get back there after a 'cheat'. 2. plan for the cheats. a dinner out or a corporate event or halloween. its the umplanned ones that get nastily cause you have not thought about it before hand so end up eating everything in site. 3. As mentioned, cheat after a long exercise session reduces the spike - while I know it works I dont fully understand the mechanics - Davetapson can explain it

Hi Topwine, I think that the kind of metabolic 'damage' you refer to is as a result of near-zero carb based diets being used in the wrong environment i.e. the kind that are used for managing epilepsy, cancer, etc. being used by 'normal' folk. If you have info on how a regular low carb diet can be harmful, please share it here ... I'm not looking to shoot the messenger, but we're all trying to understand what's best for us. My daughter (epilepsy) and I (cardiac issues) are both following low carb diets, but at very different levels with different management techniques, so while they are technically both LCHF, they are practically very different ... it's the principle that is the same. As an aside, one of the frustrations I have with the dietary movement as a whole is the lack of standardisation. What exactly do we mean by low carb? is it <20g carbs per day? <50? <200? ... and when does the diet go from high fat to hi protein?? And where do we draw the line between Paleo and LCHF? Each 'expert' has his own opinion. I guess what I can getting to is that when one study refers to low carb, that may be very different to the carb levels in another study. In the same way, what constitutes "heavy exercise"? if you asked my sedentary 75 year old mother she will tell you a half marathon is 'heavy' .... I cycled 6hrs on Sunday and did not consider it heavy. In other words horses for courses. When considering damage, diet, potential problems and benefits it's critical to see if the study in case applies to you. So, please share .... we're looking to learn Edit for spelling

IIRC was available at Sportsmans wharehouse in JHB area. Otherwise mail them directly and they will ship to you. genucan.sa@googlemail.com or twitter @GenUCAN_SA

Ill take that as a compliment Ok, if I was in your shoes, I'd do the following: Stick with LCHF as far as possible off the bike. If you are looking for a good guideline LCHF diet that will almost certainly help you loose weight, then read this ...http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/30 take careful note of the olive oil intake as energy source. If you have to have carbs, go for the natural ones like root vegetables. just stay away from processed or sugary or low fat foods. Then ... seeing as you want to race sooner than you should ... As many LSD rides on water only as you can manage. Take some nuts with you if you're really worried about energy. Cashews at first (hi carb content) progress to brazils or macadamias. Occasional interval or hill training with UCAN. I know there are many 'lo GI' and "slow release' things on the market. UCAN is the only one i trust. it will not spike your blood sugar and probably wont even kick you out of ketosis. And ... dont be scared of the bonk. you will quickly learn to feel the bonk coming on and be able to temper your effort to manage it. If your cycling mates won't wait for you ... find other mates or ride alone for a month or two till you are back up to speed.

Not sure how much of the LCHF literature you have read, but it's worth remembering that LCHF is about HEALTH. the weight loss is a side effect, not the primary driver. Reason I mention this is that I've seen a few folk go crazy on LCHF because they did not loose weight. Fat % down, blood work better, cholesterol better, trig better, etc, etc, but they considered it a 'failure' because they didn't loose weight. I'm of the opinion that your cycling will improve on LCHF even if your weight only drops a little.