3 ms·

OMAD looks like it will deliver a huge glucose spike and you'll be fighting the rest of the day against it. Horrible

snvzz 2y ago
Not at all. e.g. consider you could elect to not eat carbs at all in your one meal. And metabolism doesn't work like that in the first place. Even if you actually spiked your glucose by eating something silly such as sugar, it would go quickly up then quickly down, unless you're severely insulin resistant.
- sneak 2y ago
  Being constantly on the edge of keto but not actually in ketosis means, for most people, low energy, headaches, and irritability. Restricting carbs severely without the intention of entering ketosis is very not fun for most people, I find. It’s keto flu without any of the benefits.
  - snvzz 2y ago
    A body that's working properly is in ketosis most of the time, and enters this mode, its normal mode, very easily. Intermittent fasting is about letting the body be like this, as it naturally would. That's why meals are time-boxed to a small window within the day: To let it fast during the rest of the day. The more frequently a person eats, the less likely his body is to enter ketosis. Until it becomes unable to; it just gets hungry every few hours instead, where the person just feeds and perpetuates the cycle of not entering ketosis.
    - sneak 2y ago
      The naturalistic fallacy doesn’t explain away the simple fact that when I haven’t eaten for 12 hours I’m slow and stupid and hangry. You can invoke “working properly” and “naturally” but I think my body is working properly when I can code, and isn’t when I can’t, and unless I’m keto-adapted (48-72h since carbs) I can’t without blood sugar.
      - snvzz 2y ago
        >The naturalistic fallacy It is no lie that humans were hunters/gatherers until very recent history. >doesn't explain... How do you explain the fact I only eat once a day, and I am fine in that regard? Note that my meal usually includes rice (aka carbs).

Not at all. e.g. consider you could elect to not eat carbs at all in your one meal. And metabolism doesn't work like that in the first place. Even if you actually spiked your glucose by eating something silly such as sugar, it would go quickly up then quickly down, unless you're severely insulin resistant.

sneak 2y ago
Being constantly on the edge of keto but not actually in ketosis means, for most people, low energy, headaches, and irritability. Restricting carbs severely without the intention of entering ketosis is very not fun for most people, I find. It’s keto flu without any of the benefits.
- snvzz 2y ago
  A body that's working properly is in ketosis most of the time, and enters this mode, its normal mode, very easily. Intermittent fasting is about letting the body be like this, as it naturally would. That's why meals are time-boxed to a small window within the day: To let it fast during the rest of the day. The more frequently a person eats, the less likely his body is to enter ketosis. Until it becomes unable to; it just gets hungry every few hours instead, where the person just feeds and perpetuates the cycle of not entering ketosis.
  - sneak 2y ago
    The naturalistic fallacy doesn’t explain away the simple fact that when I haven’t eaten for 12 hours I’m slow and stupid and hangry. You can invoke “working properly” and “naturally” but I think my body is working properly when I can code, and isn’t when I can’t, and unless I’m keto-adapted (48-72h since carbs) I can’t without blood sugar.
    - snvzz 2y ago
      >The naturalistic fallacy It is no lie that humans were hunters/gatherers until very recent history. >doesn't explain... How do you explain the fact I only eat once a day, and I am fine in that regard? Note that my meal usually includes rice (aka carbs).