Orweller

If one is to question the carnivore diet, that does not make them anti-carnivore. I've observed nothing but respectfully asking questions from a newcomer, and this is the welcome he gets. I want to be challenged on what I eat, on what I read, on what I do. Especially if it's done respectfully. We should not be gatekeepers. If you can't be challenged, then why spend words to begin with? I think @Nick Heaz did not deserve such a rude response.

Ah, as a temporary measure? Makes sense. But low fat long term is no bueno. Especially when you risk eating too much protein. Thanks for the clarification.

Have you not considered adding a bit of low glycemic carbs, instead of blasting sugar like it's 1999? Small increments, I mean. And see where it goes?

Carnivore isn't for everyone either. For the first time, I think I found balance doing carnivore/ketovore. No more bloating, no more inflammation, etc.

This should be a T-Shirt. Get on it!

He did what now? Keto and low fat?? Wha? ....

You have guessed right! As a coffee lover, this is quite a concerning amount. It's a diaredic, now you need even more of that pesky water! Keep tweaking your needs and wants and I am sure you'll find harmony.

Water, 2 cups of coffee a day (half caf) with a bit of butter and stevia. At times at work, a sugar free electrolyte mix for flavor and pazaz.

Interesting point. But with sugar consumption we also have to consider dopamine response, ghrelin hormone response, which are strongly correlated with sugar addiction. Sugar is not just a sweet treat, it can be mood changing -no different than a drug- much connected with the brain reward system. Much like cocaine, sugar (sucrose) was shown to hijack the brain reward system, causing changes in the cells in the nucleus accumbens. Even though each substance has a different pathway, ultimately they produce the same results. You may draw the conclusion that a "fat" person has had prolonged exposure to sugar because of the aforementioned mechanisms. The first thing that happens with keto or carnivore, due to the absence of such amount of sugars, that effect is nihil at best. The emotion is taken further from the act of eating. As Nick Norwitz would probably utter "It's more nuanced".

I think when you talking about mere days, now that is an entire different discussion. Eating different for a few days is not really a diet, nor it is fasting -because we eat. It's going off the rails but WITHOUT the fat and protein. And that may make that binge a lot safer. I can definitely see that. The only thing that puzzles me, is the wording. Diet, and fasting is used, but neither is the case, which makes me consider it rhetoric, euphamisms, if you will. The best thing is to be honest and say -I am going to eat shit loads of sugar as safe as possible for a few days to perhaps, lose weight, or seek an insuline response. If someone would use those words, it'd be easier to understand. But the whole thing is veiled under words that "sound" healthy. While in fact it's a somewhat risky venture in order to lose weight real fast. And if people want to try it out, I am okay with it. I keep an open mind. If sugar diet works, I'd be delighted! I'd make Little Debbie's rich! But having seen a similar movement in the nineties, I see it's but a cotton candy colored dream. So you'd agree that it's a really short term strategy, rather than a diet?

Let it simmer there for a while, age it like wine. It's all part of eating Spam.

Not only that, it is also the amounts of fat COMBINED with even more sugar. The fat of course gets the blame for the crime of sugar. The mechanisms behind sugar intake are universally acknowledged, Randall cycle, glycation, etc. You can't put diesel and regular gas in a car. That's the simple way to put it, as flawed as this analogy may seem. In order for this sugar diet to work, you have to eliminate fat and protein, two essential components, and these components are replaced by a non essential component, void of nutrients that are found in the aforementioned macro nutrients. No wonder people lose weight, it's called wasting away. It is not as such that we can't lose weight on carnivore, it just takes longer, and is more challenging.

The plan will be healing, is my guess. Organs WILL take a hit due to glycation, aging will occur as well during such a diet. We ALL agree it's a non sustainable diet for these reasons. And that is where carnivore and sugar diet are vastly different. Myself, I choose for a sustainable diet, but to each their own. If someone tells me, hey you can do this, it's fine, but only for so and so time span.... then I am out. The poison is always in the dose, yes, but if you can avoid it, then why not? Both diets may lead to weight loss, but one will come with potential risks and a possible recovery from the damage done.

Glycation damage is permanent, remember this. Every time your blood sugar hits over a 100, you're redlining. That is my concern. At least you're aware of the hormonal reaction of sugar, and the loss of muscle when on low protein. Yet another concern for me. Yup, at the end of the day we each have our own journey.

I think you should try the sugar diet for a year and report back. You have an interesting thesis here.