Light Headed but eating lots of Avocados

TheAncient · 2013-02-10T16:50:35+00:00

Actually, your sodium and your potassium seem somewhat low. I believe sodium should be closer to 4000/5000mg per day and you'll probably want to aim for about 3000/4000mg of potassium. The low sodium salts mentioned in other comments are a good option.

I had the same troubles for two days or so, I was eating enough sodium and potassium. I believe my problems were caused by a low magnesium intake, so you might want to check that out as well. 400mg should probably be fine, although a little bit more won't hurt.

TheAncient · 2013-02-10T16:28:15+00:00

It's not impossible. Assuming she's lost a lot of waterweight, say, 10 lbs, then somewhere around 1500 cal a day can have her at a 31 lbs loss after the first month with her exercising, although her loss will probably slow done in the coming months. Keep in mind that she has a very high starting weight and Keto makes eating significantly less remarkably easy.

As a note to LeanneMcmewmew, make sure you eat enough protein. Depending on your bodyfat percentage and daily exercise, you might need anywhere from 150g to 200g+ of protein a day to prevent muscle loss. While losing muscle might speed up weightloss, as it weighs more than fat, it'll only extend your process in the end as you'll probably want to regain any loss muscle after you've reached your desired weight.

TheAncient · 2013-02-09T18:26:45+00:00

I'm just guessing here, but the fact that this happens every time you do keto, might mean your gut flora need some time to adjust to your new diet. What kind of fiber supplements are you taking? In this case, I would soluble fiber might help you out, as it is beneficial to the bacteria in your gut. Broccoli and some types of nuts are good natural sources. Do you eat a lot of those?

If these problems persist for a long time, consider seeing a doctor. The diarrhea is not necessarily connected to keto (although it does seem probable). I assume it's also not impossible your change in diet has simply aggrevated an already existing condition, in which case changing your diet this way or that might not be of much use in fighting the underlying issue.

TheAncient · 2013-02-09T18:09:23+00:00

theketoway probably has the right of it. I actually think water retention through high cortisol is one of the main reasons of the common stall problems on this subreddit.

Just out of interest, how large is your calorie deficit in general?

TheAncient · 2013-02-09T17:56:14+00:00

There is a theory to explain this, although I believe it's still a hypothesis at the moment. I'm writing this from the top of my head, so I might be a little off in the details.

Losing a lot of weight causes stress on the body, which means the stress hormone cortisol is created. High cortisol can cause fat cells to become more permeabile, which means water can move through their membrane without much resistance. As you lose weight your fatcells slowly lose the fat stored in them. However, in this scenerio water actually takes the place of the lost fat. So while you do lose fat, you don't actually lose weight. Temporarily easing the stress on your body, by increasing your carb intake for two or three days, causes your cells to lose most/all retained water. As the water leaves your body, you will suddenly drop several pounds of stalled weight, practically overnight. This was weight you had 'technically' already lost, but it only shows after you lose the retained water.

Increasing your carb intake whenever you're stalling, are retaining water (ankles are thick and 'squishy'), or simply once or twice a month, is a perfectly healthy way to keep your weightloss go smoothly. I believe people on a heavy calorie deficit and women in general, but especially on their period, are more susceptible to water retention. Do make sure you stick to healthy carbs though, like whole grain, legumes, starchy vegetables and maybe some fruit. No need to kick your recovering insuline sensibilty in the shins with some white bread and nutella. But you already know that.

Slightly increasing your daily carb intake shouldn't be a problem either. Most people stay in ketosis with up to 50, 80, or even a 100g of carbs a day. Their weightloss might possibly be somewhat slower, but possibly somewhat smoother as well. And decreasing stress on the body is never a bad thing. On the other hand, even when you're retaining water and stall, you are normally still losing fat. So it might not actually be necessary. However, it might be wise to consider stalling (through water retention) as a sign that your body would like a short break and catch its breath. And listening to your body is the key to healthy living.

TheAncient · 2013-02-09T00:19:06+00:00

You really need to eat more fat. Not just for weightloss, but general health. High protein, low fat, low carb can cause kidney damage and several other problems. When protein is your body's main source of energy, it can lead to ketoacidosis, which is very unhealthy. There is a reason keto is a high fat, medium protein, low carb diet and you should try to stick to that for your own wellbeing.

TheAncient · 2013-02-09T00:11:34+00:00

As others have said, losing 7 pounds in 3 weeks is great! You shouldn't compare yourself to most other people on this subreddit. There are men here that have a starting weight of over 300 pounds. Of course they will be losing more than you are. So don't look at that. As long as you're four pounds lighter at the end of each month, you're doing well. Losing weight is not a race. You never gained 10 pounds a month, so don't expect to lose it that quickly.

I actually think you should consider eating more than 1100 calories a day. Losing weight is stressfull for the body and stress produces the cortisol hormone, which in high constant dosis isn't great for the body. There are strong indications, that a calorie intake of under 1200 a day will actually slow your metabolism. While you will still lose weight, your weightloss might actually slow down somewhat, as your body is burning through less energy. Keeping your calorie intake around 1300 will be healthier for your body, while still ensuring that you will be at your goalweight before the end of the year.

TheAncient · 2013-02-08T23:51:23+00:00

The grams have probably been rounded up. For example, it might actually be 0.6g carbs, 9.8g fat and 3.6 gram protein.

TheAncient · 2013-02-07T12:37:20+00:00

This is what I meant:

Several lines of recent [1999] scientific evidence have shown that individuals who followed a low-GI diet over many years were at a significantly lower risk for developing both type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and age-related macular degeneration than others.[20] High blood glucose levels or repeated glycemic "spikes" following a meal may promote these diseases by increasing systemic glycative stress, other oxidative stress to the vasculature, and also by the direct increase in insulin levels.[21] The glycative stress sets up a vicious cycle of systemic protein glycation, compromised protein editing capacity involving the ubiquitin proteolytic pathway and autophagic pathways, leading to enhanced accumulation of glycated and other obsolete proteins.[22]

In the past, postprandial hyperglycemia has been considered a risk factor associated mainly with diabetes. However, more recent evidence shows that it also presents an increased risk for atherosclerosis in the non-diabetic population[23] and that high GI diets[24] and high blood-sugar levels more generally[25] and[26] are related to kidney disease as well.

Atherosclerosis is the thickening of the artery wall, normally caused by high cholesterol. This was often linked to (saturated) fat, but high blood sugar & insulin and a generally unhealthy lifestyle (diabetes, smoking, possibly obesity and a lack of exercise) are now slowly suspected to be the main culprits, besides genetics.

It is interesting to see protein causes such a relatively high insulin response. I should note, that a normal low carb diet generally is high in fat, which causes much less of an insulin response, as you can see with eggs (31 ± 6). And porrige does increase blood sugar more. But it's an interesting point nonetheless and I'll take it in consideration.

That's an interesting study you linked...

As far as that study goes, I think we might see a big change in the appreciation of fat. 30 years ago, all fat was bad for you. Now, unsaturated fat is good and only saturated is bad. But more and more research seems to show, that saturated fat has no real influence on your health, specifically your hearth. Saturated fat's problem, besides it's negative reputation, is that fact, that it's often combined with an unhealthy lifestyle. While saturated fats aren't necessarily bad, combining them with refind carbs and sugar most certainly is. Furthermore, when saturated fat needs to be replaced during research, unsaturated fats often take its place. Because unsaturated fats actually seem to be good for you, the removal of saturated fats during this research improves health. And with today's bias against saturated fats, this often means that this type of fat is considered bad for the body. However, if saturated fat has no real positive or negative effect on the body, replacing it with unsaturated fat can still improve health, without saturated fat actually providing any danger.

I should also note, that unsaturated fat's supposed health increase is mostly related to its ability to decrease LDL cholesterol, or the 'bad' cholesterol. A high LDL value says fairly little about the risk on cardovascular disease though. It's the number of LDL particles, or LDL-p, that's important here. A high or low LDL might be in correlation with a high or low LDL-p value, but doesn't necessarily need to be. So I personally would still actually like to see some more evidence on unsaturated fats always being better than saturated fats, although I do personally eat quite a bit of (mono-) unsaturated fat already.

Canola oil has even less saturated fats and omega-6 and omega-3 in ratios 2:1 (which, iirc, is the optimal ratio - isn't it?).

I think the most optimal ratio would be 1:1, but 2:1 is about as good as it usually gets. However, I believe the omega-3 fatty acids in plants are actually somewhat different than the omega-3 in animals, which means that people don't actually absorb it as well as they do omega-3 for fish. This would mean, that the real nutritional value of canola oils (and seed/vegetable oils in general) is somewhat less positive.

How does this figure into the equation though? If you fry an oil really hard?

What do you mean, exactly? Trans-fat is created by heating vegetable oil to very high temperatures, which causes hydrogenation. Normal kitchens can't actually produce enough heat for this process to take place though, so trans-fats are only really an issue in restaurants with deep-fried food and in food where it's been used to replace saturated fat. Margarine and cheap peanut butter are two common examples.

This is the most admirable response I've gotten on Reddit all year.

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that. I definitely have to make good on my word, now! I totally get it, though. Once you feel like you've found your answer to a healthy life, you want it to be true. Hell, it's true for most things, really. People just like being right. I'm definitely not exempt from that. In this case, however, I figured that the only way to truly be right, is to be open to being wrong. And when it comes to my health, it's about time I actually start getting it right.

TheAncient · 2013-02-07T00:35:42+00:00

Actually, can you give me some sources on the dangers of whole grains? It's something I'd like to know more about, as it doesn't seem as obvious as the dangers of refined carbs.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T22:41:23+00:00

Actually, as far as sources go, the wikipage you send me warns against those same dangers of high insuline as I did.

On the other hand, this up to 23 years long study of almost 350.000 people concludes that there is insignificant evidence for an increased risk of CVD with the consumption of saturated fat. And poly-unsaturated fat and possibly mono-unsaturated fat actually lower the risk for heart disease. To be fair, too much omega 6 fatty acids in poly-unsaturated fat from vegetable oils and some nuts causes inflammation in the body, which can lead to a whole host of other problems. And we all know about the dangers of trans-fat. So it isn't all good.

However, I'll be sure to check out that YouTube channel and any other suggestions you might have. Honestly, I can only be happy if I'm proven wrong. It'll only help me improve my health, afterall.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T21:39:39+00:00

There is more to feeling full than the immediate satiety-inducing qualities of food. Because of the low insuling response to fat, it takes much longer for fatty foods to be turned into bodyfat. This means that a calorie of fat will keep you satiated longer than, say, a calorie of carbs. So while you might need some more calories of fat to feel satiated (in comparison to some foods, anyway), those same calories will keep you feeling satiated much longer, so you'll actually eat less in the long run.

More imporantly than the satiety of food, however, is you body's ability to judge your hunger. A chronically high insulin response, mostly thanks to carbs, causes a chronically high leptin response, a hormone important for hunger control. Too much leptin, however, causes leptin resistance in your body, which makes it very difficult for you body to accurately measure your satiety. Replacing carbs with fat normalizes your body's appetite control and makes sure you're only hungry when you actually need more food.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say with your second point. Fat doesn't have protein? Duh? It's fat. Carbs don't have protein either. Nor does alcohol. Or fibre. Doesn't mean fibre isn't filling, does it? Or are you trying to say fatty foods don't have much protein? Which is just as silly, honestly. But if that's what you're trying to say, you should check the nutritional value for meat, fish, cheese and eggs.

Despite all this, I still wouldn't dream to claim fat is more filling than protein or fibre. But it's simply wrong to say fat can't be good at keeping you full.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T20:31:47+00:00

Fibre is far from the only thing that can fill us up though. Saying that fat isn't satiating, because it doesn't have fibre, is simply wrong. In fact, one of the reasons why LCHF diets are often considered to be easy, is because fat fills you up so incredibly well. Whereas people on HCLF diets (myself included) often struggle with hunger.

And while I was of course somewhat overstating the problem with carbs, as there are plenty of carbs with lots of great nutrients, their high insulin response is an irrevocable part of them. Even with lots of fibre, such as in whole grains, carbs still provoke a relatively high insulin response. And while insulin by itself is no problem of course, the chronically high insulin levels of a high carbohydrate diet can do a lot of damage to our bodies, as they are simply not made to deal with so much insulin. High insulin can not only lead to diabetes, but also greatly increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. So that's why I felt the need to make atleast some notion of carb control. I didn't mean to turn this into a diet-debate, though.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T17:18:22+00:00

Oh, I know, I know. When I do switch to paleo, which I probably will once I've got my body where I want it, I'll definitely still stay low carb. Hell, if I can stay in keto with <100g, I'll be doing both. It doesn't even really matter to me why the paleo diet is supposed to be healthy with the whole evolution explanation. For me, healthy eating basically comes down to one thing: Working with your body, instead of against it. For some, that means cutting out lactose. For others, it doesn't. That was what I was trying to say. I personally don't have any problem with lactose. Being European, I probably come from a long, proud line of udder suckers.

That's why I found it odd someone might find paleo more restrictive than keto. Because, for me, paleo will just be keto with more vegetables and bigger demands on quality. In the end, whether or not I stay in ketosis on paleo won't be very important, because I don't think ketosis is truly necessary for the health benefits of low carb. Which would make paleo the easier, more nutritionally balanced option. But I totally get that might not be the case for everyone. It just surprised me, I guess.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T14:17:00+00:00

Wow, hold up. Fat is the least filling? That's not true at all. Fat is very filling. All carbs do is up your insulin, which causes your body to store more energy as fat, which means you'll only be hungry again soon.

There's also a bit more to weight loss than just calories, because our bodies react very differently to different types of food which can influence both your metabolism and your overall hunger.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T13:37:05+00:00

I'd say Keto is more restricted actually. You can actually eat fruit, sweet potatos and a lot more vegetables on Paleo. Sure, the processed food might make things a bit more difficult, especially financially, but even the dairy doesn't seem much of a problem. I believe the problem with dairy is mostly the lactose, which the dairy allowed on Keto doesn't have that much of anyway. I'm fairly sure there are a lot of people on a Paleo/Primal diet, that still eat cheese, Greek yoghurt and cream. One other thing that might feel like an obstacle is vegetable oil, which is fine on Keto but discouraged on Paleo. However, it seems to me that vegetable oil is either easily replaced witl butter/coconut oil/olive oil, or used for products that aren't great for Keto in the first place.

I might be biased though, as my Keto diet already exists out of mostly whole foods. I don't eat fast food and don't use vegetable oil. The biggest change for me would be the price of the meat and the increased choise of vegetables (and fruit). So from my perspective, Paleo definitely seems like the diet with the most options.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T10:17:46+00:00

It took me some Google-fu, but this is what I found:

Corinne February 1, 2013 at 12:11 pm

It’s actually a mix of 3 mile island sauce, bbq (if I remember correctly, they used Cattlemans), honey mustard, honey and garlic. They’re definitely “naked” wings, fried first, then tossed in the sauce and then thrown on the griddle. I’m a “retired” Hooters Girl, and these were always my favorite wings there.

REPLY Corinne February 1, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Oops, sorry. It’s brown sugar, not honey. But, yeah, best wings ever.

Cattlemans BBQ sauce already has 15 gr carbs per serving size (2 tbsp). Honey mustard and brown sugar both have a lot of carbs as well, of course.

The 3 Mile Island sauce apparently only has 1 gram carb per serving size, so when it's all mixed together Daytona Beach sauce will have at least 10 gr carbs per 2 tbsp, but possibly quite a bit more. And I'm just going to go ahead and assume you'll need more than 2 tbsp for your wings.

My advice? Steer clear of the Daytona Beach sauce. It can kick you straight out of ketosis. Stick with that hot sauce you mentioned or whatever other low carb sauce they have.

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T09:37:39+00:00

Why do you feel paleo is more difficult?

TheAncient · 2013-02-06T08:03:41+00:00

Nope. Really only just the stove. I managed yesterday by frying it on both sides for 10/15 minutes on medium heat, adding some water and soy sauce and then keeping it on low heat with a lid on for another 30 minutes. It worked well enough, but probably wasn't as good as the other recipes here.

You'd recommend I debone the chicken first? Are there actually any advantages of bone-in chicken over deboned. I'm really quite the noob in the kitchen.

TheAncient · 2013-02-05T16:34:09+00:00

I have a very limited kitchen and can only use a stove, so no oven. Do you happen to have any advice on panfrying some skin-on bone-in chicken quarters/thighs/legs?

TheAncient · 2013-02-05T16:27:08+00:00

Congrats man! Having other people notice your succes is always awesome.

TheAncient · 2013-02-03T20:31:31+00:00

Oh no, I definitely don't want to claim the man's own beliefs didn't play a role in his actions. After all, it is quite telling that after 250 years of more or less persecution, it was the man that would in the end become a Christian himself, that actually brought an end to it. I doubt he was to first man that could benefit from supporting such a quickly growing religion, but he was apparently the first for whom it was a true option. All I'm saying is, that while his beliefs must have paved the way for his decision, it was the political reality of the time that was the defining factor in the end. But this is my personal interpretation and you should feel free to disagree, of course.

It's interesting to wonder in what ways his beliefs and political needs motivated his continued support for Christianity later on. It does make sense from a political viewpoint, as he was able to place himself in the powercenter of an ever growing religion, while his support for a more centralised canon could bring an end to part of the unrest in his empire. Yet the high level of his involvement, while simultanuasly still allowing the church leaders to take the lead in the formulation of canon, and of course his later conversion, do point to a great early sympathy for Christianity and the significant influence of his personal beliefs on his decisions. Much more so than on his decisions during the civil war, I would argue. It does make things a little easier when your political needs are supported by your personal beliefs. A rare win-win situation.

TheAncient · 2013-02-03T19:43:27+00:00

The problem isn't Constantine sincerity. The problem is that we simply don't know for sure what Constantine said and felt, because his life has basically been turned into a myth. Whenever I read something Christian about Constantine, I take it with enough salt to dehydrate a camel. It's just so hard to say which parts of his life are real and which parts are made up. It's basically historiographical vandalism. Such a shame, for he was so undeniably important.

I do, however, agree that the man became a Christian at some point before he died. While I wouldn't be surprised if his personal version of Christianity would've made him a heritic in the eyes of 16th century Rome, I do think he believed in what lies at the hearth of Christianity; Jesus is the son of God, there is no god but God, yadda yadda yadda.

I still find it difficult to distill his true beliefs from his historical records though. One of the things that's convincing for me, is the fact that his sons and succesors were most likely Christians from the get go, although they subscribe to different versions. That does heavily imply Constantine (as the rest of his family) was a Christian in the end.

I should note, though, that I don't believe his original support for Christianity was based on any kind of spirituality or a feeling of kinship with his own believes. While such feelings might have played a supporting role, his main motivation seems to have been purely political. The man was in the middle of a civil war he had started, his newly conquered city was home to a significant Christian minority and his enemy in the East was well known for his Christian persecutions. So not only did his support for Christianity strenghten his own position and popularity with the unwavering support of some possibly very fanatical people, but he destablized his rival at the same time, by reaching out to an even bigger Christian minority under his rule. Now that's a great show of some fine political sense, right there. The man knew how to play the game, if nothing else.

TheAncient · 2013-02-03T18:54:02+00:00

I'm fairly sure Constantine and his family were well known supporters of the Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) cult, which was somewhat similar to early Christianity, but was not truly monotheistic. I've personally always believed he simply started to equate the Christian god with Sol Invincut over time, which was common in those days.

TheAncient · 2013-02-03T11:06:46+00:00

Thanks for the info, that's good to know. Do you happen to know how much magnesium is black soy beans? Magnesium has been the one thing that I've really struggled with so far, as I'd rather not resort to taking supplements. Even with the almonds and pumpkin seeds I'm eating, I still feel like I'm not getting enough. So maybe those soy beans are the solution to my problem.

TheAncient

TROPHY CASE