I get asked this a lot, so here are my thoughts.

First, two disclaimers -- I'm not a doctor.  Second, I've got a lot of data, but it's all mine so it's all anecdote.  All I can back it up with is a few friends who have similar or identical gear to what I use.

So with that said, here we go.

First, alcohol (drinking alcohol now, not the non-potable versions!) are ethanol.  They are a form of carbohydrate.

But alcohol is a special carbohydrate.  Unlike the common sort in foods ethanol is preferentially metabolized -- that is, it is burned first before other carbohydrates. This is why you get drunk (instead of it "mixing" with all the other carbs and being taken up slowly, which would mean you'd have to drink on an empty stomach to get drunk at all) but at about one drink per hour, you also burn it off at the same rate no matter how much food you eat.

Like all other carbohydrates, however, ethanol also produces the same sort of boost/crash response that you get from other fast carbs, and in fact since it burns first it's arguably the fastest carb.  This is why when you're drinking you often want food and is why "bar food" is inevitably high in carb content (e.g. french fries, etc); the bar owners are not stupid and they sell what people want to buy.

There are two basic problems with drinking alcohol in any amount as it relates to a keto lifestyle.  The first is that booze inherently is anti-ketogenic, although if you keep it to one drink in a day you can remain in a ketogenic state and have that one drink, provided you are performing some amount of exercise (so as to keep glycogen stores very low.)  The problem is that the second drink, and any non-keto food you might consume due to the cravings that alcohol does produce, is almost-certainly enough to knock you out of a ketogenic state.

There used to be a book out there from the early 1900s called "The Drinking Man's Diet."  Unsurprisingly, it called for consumption of essentially zero carbohydrate; the reason is that alcohol consumption greatly potentiates weight gain if you eat carbohydrates.  Why?  Because it's metabolized first and thus the rest of the carbs you take in wind up being stored as glycogen and, if your glycogen stores fill it goes directly on your body as fat.

So that's the keto-related bad news, basically.  But unfortunately the bad news doesn't end there and it's not ketogenic-specific.

I own a Fenix 5x, which I wear basically all the time (except when doing some sort of work that might damage it, such as working on my car, and when it needs to be charged) including overnights.  It's an incredible piece of equipment which I bought mostly for its performance tracking under exercise and its mapping functionality, which is a safety feature when I am hiking in the backcountry ("never lost" as long as it can see the sky and has power.)  No, it's not a substitute for a map, compass and knowing how to do land nav, but it's convenient and, in my opinion, was well-worth the investment.

It also gives me a hell of a lot of data across my entire day.  One of the things it allows me to do is track the quality of sleep, heart-rate variation (which maps to your stress level) and resting heart rate.  And this is where the second piece piece of bad news comes from.

I can tell you from looking at that RHR and HRV (stress) level during my time sleeping on which days I have had zero alcohol intake, on which days I had one drink, on which days I had two, and on which days I had more.  The "more" doesn't matter; once you pass the second one in a day from a stress point of view you may as well get hammered.  My accuracy rate just looking at this piece of information alone is astoundingly high -- and when it's wrong, it's never wrong on the low side (that is, indicating less stress than my booze intake indicates.)

The first drink will raise my resting heart rate by a point or two and delay my systemic stress level from dropping into the lowest category by a couple of hours.  The second by two to four points and costs me half the night in terms of getting into that "resting" state from a stress point of view.  Third and beyond?  You're screwed in terms of actually getting anything that's called "rest" when you sleep.

This has profound implications if you are interested in athletic performance as well.  There's simply no way you will be well-rested and able to perform at peak capacity if you've had anything to drink for two to three days prior to the event.

This is utterly repeatable, every time, has been since I've owned this unit from the first day forward and anyone that has access to that data is going to be able to figure it out without knowing anything else about you.  A couple of friends of mine who have similar units have told me that they have identical results, and I've confirmed this as they've let me look at their data briefly and told them which days they went out to the bar.  I was right -- every time.

For this reason putting such data in the "cloud" and allowing anyone else access to it is a profoundly bad idea.  You don't need an AI to process this, just a pair of eyeballs!

It would be utterly trivial to determine your consumption of booze and "box" you from which it would then be trivial to do things like charge you more for insurance.

The above, by the way, assumes your alcohol is liquor and there are no sugars in whatever you mix it with, if anything.  Straight-up Scotch, vodka-and-(diet) tonic, etc.  Beer and wine also contains carbs that are not from the alcohol; those have to be counted too and it's almost-impossible to know what the non-booze carb content is with the exception of a handful of "light" beers that advertise it -- because unlike actual food the manufacturers don't have to tell you, and they typically don't.  When it comes to craft beer you may get away with one pint glass (or 10oz for high-gravity) of beer but you won't get away with the second in terms of ketosis.  The same issue presents itself when it comes to wine.

So if you're asking whether drinking alcohol is compatible with living a ketogenic lifestyle, the answer is "maybe."  The maybe is that if you are actively trying to lose weight then no, it isn't, and by the way, it doesn't matter what form of food intake you're using in that case because alcohol will poison all of them in terms of weight loss.  The old saying that "he has a beer belly" is not bullshit, in short.  One of the worst ways to sabotage your metabolic systems is to screw with your hunger regulation -- while it's possible to ignore that it takes an amount of willpower few possess.

If you are very studious about avoiding any sort of other carbs, except for nutrient-dense green vegetables, then you can probably remain in a ketogenic diet with one drink a day, assuming you are an average-height male.  Women have it tougher simply because on average they're smaller and alcohol is typically not "sized" in terms of the size of the drink to match body size and mass.  This means that for most women that first drink is going to be borderline.  Your odds of remaining in a ketogenic state improve if you are engaged in a material amount of vigorous exercise daily (defined as at least 15 minutes of effort in heart rate zone 4 or 5) as well.

But beyond one drink it doesn't matter if you're trying to live a keto lifestyle.  You will get knocked out of a ketogenic state with the second beer or mixed drink essentially every single time and it is likely to require 48 hours or even more to return to it.

So yeah, if you have one night a week you have a few beers and such you basically took a 7-day ketogenic state and turned it into a 3-4 day one. That's half.  If you're already where you want to be in terms of body mass and metabolic state you can get away with that once a week and probably not harm yourself all that much.

But if you do that twice in a week you can forget it.

The worse news, however, is that ketogenic or not that second drink costs you substantially in terms of impacting your overall body stress level and quality of sleep.  The third one destroys both and it will require 48-72 hours of abstinence before things are back to normal.

This, incidentally, is wildly out of kilter with what the so-called medical "experts" will tell you.  They all say that one drink a day is not harmful and may even be protective; that the second one is probably "neutral" and real serious harm starts with the third (and gets rapidly worse with increasing quantity.)

Nope.

The trivially documented disruption starts with the first drink, the second does very material damage to the quality of your rest and beyond that you may as well get rip-roaring trashed in terms of cardio and overall systemic stress.

I'm sure a far more-strict analysis is almost directly dose-dependent -- for example, the damage done to your liver.  But here I'm not focusing on the long-term chronic effects from drinking too much -- those are both well-known and basically impossible to argue with.

This is simply looking at the data in the context of consumption of "routine" amounts of alcohol if you are trying to live a healthier metabolic lifestyle.

The often-heard comments when someone says they're eating HFLC include "your kidneys will explode", "Atkins was really bad for him (Mr. Atkins)", "You'll have a heart attack", "You can't be athletic doing that; you need carbs" and more.

I would like to put some perspective on this.  Yes, this is anecdote; it's a sample size of one with no double-blind, of course -- that is, my personal experience.

Some background: Somewhat over five years ago I essentially went hard-core Atkins-induction coupled with "Couch-to-5k."  At the time I was unable to run one half mile without stopping, climbing a few sets of stairs was work, even summer lawn mowing was a strenuous exercise -- while the heat was certainly not helpful, neither was exercise tolerance.  I was "nominally healthy" in that I was not diabetic, but my body mass had risen from about 155 in High School to right around 210, plus or minus a couple.  I had several times undertaken fairly severe exercise regimes, including hour-long daily stints on a stationary recumbent bike I purchased, in an attempt to lose weight, along with a low-fat, "eat plants" diet -- without success.  I could drop 10lbs without much trouble, but no more, I was ravenously hungry all the time, and as soon as I cut back on the exercise the weight came right back on and stayed.

I'm absolutely certain that I was insulin resistant even though my blood glucose was normal -- I'd get the "hangries" if I attempted to not eat in the morning immediately on waking, and was often hungry for something by mid-afternoon after eating a carb-laden (and low-fat) lunch.  If there was a bag full of M&Ms in front of me and I had one, the entire bag would be gone within a couple of hours.  The same for a tin full of cookies.  A loaf of home-made bread (I have a bread-maker) would be lucky to make two days; the first big, thick slice would get consumed and I'd want two more an hour later.

In short despite my outward metabolic signs being ok, but being overweight (not obese) I know exactly where I was headed -- for both obesity and diabetes.  I'm sure of it.

So in early 2011 I decided I'd had enough -- that the conventional wisdom was either wrong or I was simply going to be consigned due to bad genetics to get older, fatter, and sicker.  The latter is what we have all been sold and I was determined to not simply give up.

Since that was the consensus, I saw no harm in trying something else -- after all, the odds were that I would not make it worse, at least not quickly, and when it comes to things like heart attacks and strokes they take years to develop, weeks or months.

So I went full-on, zero-carb Atkins induction, bought a pair of Nike running shoes and a Garmin 305 with a heart rate strap to track my exercise.

I'm not going to tell you that this was an easy path, at least at first.  I modified the Couch-to-5k thing (you can look it up online) in only one way -- the very last segment of each work-out I ran as hard and fast I could.  At the start this was maybe an eighth to a quarter of a mile, but it would grow to a half-mile later.  Other than that I pretty-much followed the program.

I could not run a half-mile when I started.  Not even close.

I felt like I'd been hit by a bus every.... single... day.

But I kept with it, both on the food and running.  After the first two weeks I added back green vegetables, but otherwise ate zero carbohydrate -- and that included alcohol.  Instead of three times a week I tried for five, and got up at 0500 every day to do it because living in Florida it's hot, even in May.

In the first week, five pounds disappeared.  I knew this would happen and probably be (mostly) water.  The next week and pretty-much every week thereafter, however, another one or two came off.

About two months later I ran a full 3.1 miles for the first time, without slowing to a walk or stopping.  It was not easy, but I did it, and by now it was the middle of June.

Eight months later, roughly that Thanksgiving, I was down to about 160.

I looked at the Garmin stats.  I had lost 50 lbs, which is about 175,000 calories. Running is about 120 calories a mile, according to a heart-rate adjusted GPS machine, and I had run roughly 500 miles at that point, or 60,000 calories worth.

Only one third of the body mass I lost was due to exercise.  That's a numerical fact; the rest was lost due to changing what I ate.

I slowly lost about another 5 lbs; my body weight now fluctuates around 155, +/- 5, assuming I'm reasonably good.

And there it has stayed for the last five years -- whether I'm training for a half-marathon, the Wicked Triple (three races in two days of close to a marathon distance in total), hiking part of the AT, sitting on my ass enjoying a vacation or whatever else I might be doing.  My exertion levels have literally been all over the map, yet my body mass has not.

What has remained constant, more or less, is my adherence to the consumption of food things (and not consuming others!) that I have laid out many times -- you can read that list right here.

Now here's what's changed long-term when it comes to my person and my health that I haven't talked about much:

• Since I was a child I have had horrid problems with seasonal allergies to the point of being nearly useless twice a year for a month or so.  No amount of medication, OTC or prescription, has ever successfully controlled this completely.  Benedryl works but knocks me flat on my ass, and anything containing pseudoephedrine makes me feel extremely uncomfortable -- I'm one of the people who just can't use any decongestant containing that substance.  I was basically forced to remain indoors, in an air-conditioned space, for two months out of the year and maintain a high-quality pollen filter in my car's airhandler -- or else.  I also avoided travel to woodsy and other flowery areas during the times they were in bloom for obvious reasons.  Slowly, over the last couple of years, my seasonal allergies irrespective of where I am in the country have almost completely disappeared.  They're not completely gone; I still suffer from some congestion for short periods of time, but it's much better than it was.  Last spring I hiked a piece of the AT through the spring bloom, complete with thousands of bees pollinating the flowers, and had exactly zero trouble.  Five years ago that would have been unthinkable.  This appears to be correlated with....
  
  
• My general inflammation level has, I believe, dropped quite a bit.  I had always had "on and off" acne problems, even as an adult.  As a teen it was bad, but it never went completely away -- until I got rid of the carbs.  The same is true of skin issues; I always had them on and off, especially in the winter when the air is dry.  Again, completely gone the first winter and they have stayed gone since.  Gee, I wonder what's going on in my coronary arteries?  Betcha it's not bad things but no, I'm not paying a couple of grand to get CT+contrast scanned to find out for sure.  (The one exception: perfumes in laundry detergents will still "get" me, so I have to watch out for that.)
   
  
• I have no adverse blood glucose reaction to sugar intake.  I have, a couple of times in the last year, "challenged" my body with heavy sugar intake just to see what happens; typically with a large dose of milk chocolate or heavily sugar-laden confections like donuts.  I've not been able to drive my blood glucose over 110 with such a challenge despite intentionally trying.  I don't know if I could actually drive my blood sugar to anywhere near 140 today (the upper boundary of what they call the "normal" reaction to such a test) if I literally sat and ate a bag of sugar.  Note that while I was never diabetic I'm very sure my metabolism was compromised.  For those who wonder if your metabolic systems can heal over time if you stop insulting them, the answer appears to be "Yes."
  
  
• I don't like sugar any more.  Things with a lot of sugar in them taste like crap.  Raw white sugar now has a smell to it that I associate with being "medicinal" and is not at all pleasant.  It sort of smells like poison, in fact -- hmmmm.... maybe it is?
  
  
• I have no "hangries" -- ever -- or carb-cravings.  I often have no desire to eat anything before roughly lunchtime; I'll get up in the morning and am simply not hungry.  This means that if I eat something around lunch, and then around dinner, I'm effectively fasting 18 hours out of every day.  It's not because I'm trying, it's because I'm not hungry.
  
  
• If I do work out a lot my appetite goes up.  If I don't it goes down.  I don't have to think about it, count calories, make efforts to restrict my consumption of food or anything like that.  It's simply this: If I'm hungry I eat.  If I'm not I don't.  Oh, and since I'm not gorging myself on hangries my capacity for food has shrunk.  Yes, it appears my stomach is smaller, in that I get full faster -- and it empties slower too.  An interesting observation that I cannot correlate with fact, but I sure can with how I feel if I try to stuff myself for some reason.
  
  
• My exercise tolerance has gone up massively.  The other day I worked on wrecking out part of my gazebo floor (it needs replaced) which involved using a Wonder Bar, saw and moving sand (via shovel and yard cart) that had accumulated under them and then mowed most of the back yard -- in 90ish degree weather with 85%+ humidity.  It was hotter than Hell, but other than needing to stop and get a drink a couple of times it wasn't all that bad.  I would have heat-stroked out trying this a few years ago -- literally.  Likewise I might go run a 5k tonight, and while the sun will be down it won't be any cooler.  Yes, it will be hotter than hell, but I'm not concerned about not being able to do it.  This I attribute to the exercise, not the diet.  But, with an extra 50lbs I suspect I wouldn't be able to move my additional mass irrespective of my cardio condition anywhere near as well as I can today.
  
  
• I am far faster running now than I ever was -- including in High School!  I was never able to break the 9 minute mile barrier on a 3 mile run, with my "typical" time being around 30 minutes.  My PR now is 7:00 flat on a timed 5k race and 7:49 on a half-marathon.  This isn't a singular result either; my kid, who ran one season with the HS cross-country team, has half-way adopted my way of eating over the last six months -- and not only has her appearance improved she has also taken more than two minutes a mile from her time, breaking the 10 minute/mile threshold for the first time in the last couple of weeks.  Don't tell me you can't perform athletically on a low-carb diet -- that's a damned lie.

I'm not going to tell you this was all easy, because it wasn't up front.  Yes, carb-cravings are real.  A week or so back while in a group having a conversation that turned to food I remarked that I do not, as a rule, eat carbs -- my carb intake is for the most part beer, and only a couple a day maximum.  A nurse who was there proceeded to say that "Atkins causes kidney disease" and further that she "has cravings for carbs and thus needs them."  Both are false; first, Atkins is high fat, not high protein.  It is true that high protein diets can cause kidney problems but that's not Atkins; that's doing it wrong!  Second, meth causes cravings too, but that doesn't mean you need meth -- it means you're addicted to it!  Carbs are the same deal; when challenged as to the specific nutrients that you need that are in carbs, of course, she had no answer.  That would be because there aren't any; the amount of carbohydrate you actually require in your diet is zero.  I gave up; oh, she was complaining about having big snoring problems too (gee, I wondered, if you lost some weight what might happen to that........) This, however, is illustrative of the attitude of many in the so-called "health business"; their 4 hours of class at some point was not only insufficient most of what was in there is flat out wrong and even when taking this path might help alleviate a person problem they're experiencing they won't try it!

Here's my view, more than five years into this: I've seen exactly zero bad effects from adopting this lifestyle, and multiple good ones.  My indicators of metabolic health have improved, my exercise tolerance is up massively, I am more able to perform athletically today than I was when I was 17 despite being three times as old, I have zero glucose tolerance trouble evident when challenged, I am never "hangry", I do not crave carbs and in fact find things with sugar in them "too" sweet yet I count no calories or make other conscious attempt to control my food intake and my body mass is approximately what it was 35 years ago and hasn't moved more than a few pounds in either direction for the last five years.  The only exception was when I was in a relationship, eating far too many carbs (and knew it) and five more pounds went on -- literally as soon as I cut that crap out they disappeared within a couple of weeks.

Why would I change what I'm doing now, when for the last five years it has worked -- effortlessly -- to not only halt what was an obvious and visible (albeit slow) decrease my personal vitality and health that many would simply attribute to old age, but almost-completely reversed it -- and in many cases my health and physical abilities now exceed those of my teen years!

Yes, I'm a data set of one.

Now tell me why would you not run your own experiment.

I'm all ears.

How does this sort of tripe wind up in print?

Aamodt is a neuroscientist, book author and former editor of a leading brain research journal. She also has become a prominent evangelist of the message that traditional diets just don't work and often leave the dieter worse off than before. And she's an enthusiastic proponent of mindful eating.

"I define it as eating with attention and joy, without judgment," Aamodt said in an interview. "That includes attention to hunger and fullness, to the experience of eating and to its effects on our bodies."

Riiiight.

Look folks, there are people who have a mental disorder when it comes to food.  I accept this, because it is trivially shown to be true.  But the vast majority of people who are overweight are not sick in the head or suffering from some psychosis -- they've been actively misled as to what's going on and the media spurs this with its crap "reporting" such as this article.

Likewise, the "energy balance" folks (all of whom like to wag their finger and scold) are correct but intentionally misleading.  That is, it is absolutely true that since a pound of body mass is roughly 3000-3500 calories (there is some debate on exactly what the number is but this is close enough; within 20%) if you wish to lose weight you must consume fewer calories than your body burns.

There's no escaping that; it's math.  Isn't it funny, however, that these people never bother to continue their mathematical exercise?  We'll get to why not in a minute, so hold that thought.

There is, unfortunately, also no escaping the fact that running, one of the highest calorie-consuming exercises, only burns about 100-120 calories a mile -- more if you're very heavy (it takes more energy to move your fat ass) and less if you're not, but again, we're talking about a 20% tolerance here and for the most part the figure is about the same irrespective of other factors.

This, by the way, means that you must run approximately a marathon to lose a pound!

No Mildred, you cannot outrun your fork and anyone who tells you otherwise is completely full of crap.

Yes, we have an obesity epidemic; fully 40% of US women are obese along with 35% of men -- and even worse, one in five adolescents!  This is a ridiculous percentage and what's really awful is that those who are in this position are setting themselves up for utterly horrible, slow and painful ways to die -- first through amputations, then blindness and kidney disease, and finally heart attack and stroke, all after decades of avoidable suffering and restricted physical capability.

It seems that every couple of years someone else comes along with yet another crackpot theory on why it is that people get and stay fat -- and then both get sick and die as a result.  They all keep trying to make the case that it's not your fault in some form or fashion, using words like "easy" to describe their particular prescriptive answer, knowing full well that this sells books.

After all, if you told people it was their fault or would be hard how many of them would pay you for the book -- the speech -- or the "counseling"?

But all these theories are just that -- theories, and IMHO they're all full of crap when it comes to long-term success.

Here are some facts for you and they are trivially proved through nothing more than casual observation of the world around you and arithmetic you learned in the first and second grades:

• Every organism in the animal kingdom has a regulatory mechanism in its body that is autonomous for controlling how much food said organism takes in.  Absent that since "food" generally tastes good to said organism all animals would continually fill their stomachs to their maximum capacity as often as possible, eschewing virtually anything else other than sex, until they all died of obesity-related disease.  Clearly this does not happen "in the wild" but it sure does when a creature's "natural" diet is disrupted.  Witness all the "fat cats" that eat packaged kibble, then compare the nutrients in said kibble with that in a mouse or bird. The prosecution rests, your (dis)Honor.
  
  
• Since it requires 3,300 calories to gain or lose a pound as a human and there are 365 days in a year in order to regulate your body size within one pound per year over time you must manage to control your caloric intake and expenditure within 10 calories per day.  For some perspective that is less than 1/10th of an ounce of potato chips!  If you wish to count them accurately use Pringles (all chips the same size and mass) and you will find that to control your body mass that accurately through voluntary action would require that you keep your consumption accurate to within one potato chip daily.  Certainly you cannot do this irrespective of the form and type of food you consume through "mindful", that is, volitional conduct.  The accuracy required simply cannot be met.
  
  
• Remember, however, that there are a lot of things that go on in your body that require maintenance at this sort of accuracy and none of them are voluntary.  Your blood pressure, glucose level, blood pH, uric acid, water content, potassium level, dissolved CO2 and oxygen saturation are just a few examples of literally hundreds.  Any of these parameters that go materially out of "normal" range will cause serious disease and in many cases instant death.  Yet your body knows how to regulate all of them, as does every other animal's body on the planet, and all of that regulation in every organism that is alive happens without a scintilla of conscious thought.

So what's actually going on?

Don't ask NBC news; they claim nobody knows:

"Numerous foundations, industries, professional societies, and governmental agencies have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to support basic science research in obesity, clinical trials and observational studies, development of new drugs and devices, and hospital and community programs to help stem the tide of the obesity epidemic," the journal's editors, Dr. Jody Zylke and Dr. Howard Bauchner, wrote in a commentary.

"The obesity epidemic in the United States is now 3 decades old, and huge investments have been made in research, clinical care, and development of various programs to counteract obesity. However, few data suggest the epidemic is diminishing," they added.

Did you all flunk basic organic chem, then biochem and simply ignore the monstrous body of evidence that has been accumulated on this problem?

There is one basic fact that has to be dealt with by anyone propounding on our obesity epidemic: 

Your body knows how to regulate its caloric intake in light of highly-variable energy expenditure and do so within 10 calories a day.  If it did not the species Homo Sapiens would have gone extinct centuries ago just as would any other species that could not regulate its caloric intake.

Therefore the question must be this and only this:

Why is that regulatory system not working, can a fat person restore it to normal function, and if so how?

I believe we know the answer to that question but admitting it means admitting that the medical and "nutrition" folks have been lying to overweight people for decades and, in fact, they know damn well they've been lying which means they should all be in prison for the outrageous harms they have inflicted on millions of Americans.

Let's start with history.  Homo Sapiens (that is, our specific species) has been on this planet for about 200,000 years.  Our direct lineage in that regard is the matter of some dispute, but what is not in dispute is that until about 12,000 years ago we had no industrial mode of food production whatsoever.  That is, for better than 90% of the species' time on this planet we ate only that which we could obtain without processing, other than perhaps rudimentary cooking.

The epidemic of heart disease, obesity and diabetes is a 20th century+ phenomena.  It therefore must be traced to something (or a group of somethings) that happened in that time frame.  Ancel Keys claimed it was dietary saturated fat that led to heart attacks and strokes.  He cherry-picked his data, however, which made his advocacy not a mistake but a lie, and a fairly easy one to prove too.

So would anyone care to guess where it began?

I'll help you. It began right here with a dramatic increase in use of a very dangerous substance.

About 20-30 years following that ramp in cigarette consumption, guess what happened?  Lots of heart attacks and strokes.  Do you think this was a function of "fat in the diet" or do you think this had something to do with per-capita cigarette consumption going from ~200 in 1912 to twenty times that rate by 1959?  When you go from an average of less than one cigarette a day per-person to close to a full pack a day what do you think is going to happen to heart disease and stroke rates, with about a 20 year lag?

That's exactly what did happen.  Duh.

Then there's Crisco and other related trans-fats.  They came on the market in the early 1900s too and were in fact sold as healthier than animal fats.  But we now know that transfats greatly increase the risk of heart disease, while the association with saturated animal fats in fact runs the other way -- among European diets the highest in saturated fat (the Mediterranean nations) have the lowest cardiovascular disease rates. 

Between smoking and transfats is the causal chain clear yet or do I need a bigger clue-by-4?

Now let's look at obesity, which began to spike in the 1980s.

Again, what changed?

Simple: The US Government played hell with its "war on fat" predicated on the lie told by Keys (among others) and told people to cut it out of their diets.  But there are only three foods at a macro level -- fats, carbohydrates and proteins.  If you remove fat from the diet you must increase one or both of the others.

What got increased?  Carbohydrates -- specifically, cheap, fast and highly-processed carbohydrates.

And what do we know about carbohydrates, especially fast, processed carbohydrates such as grains (e.g. breads, pastas, etc), sugars and similar?  They all produce a large insulin response in the body.

Oh, and if that's not enough carbohydrate consumption also increases systemic inflammation and "bad" cholesterol, which prompts cholesterol in the body, a necessary component of our metabolic system, to perform the job it is present to do -- that is, to encapsulate and attempt to repair said inflammation.  Blaming cholesterol for heart attacks (and trying to reduce it through chemicals) is like blaming it for the inflamed finger you have after sticking yourself with a thorn -- rather than removing the thorn!

Finally, with few exceptions these "foods" have only existed in our diet for the last few hundred to few thousand years -- an inconsequential period of time on the evolutionary time scale.

In other words there is no evidence that our bodies know how to process these carbohydrates without harm because we did not evolve in their presence and thus our genetic coding was not selected through evolution to favor said energy sources.  The same is true for vegetable-based oils (PUFAs), none of which have been ingested in material quantity by humans for more than 100 years.

You would have to eat a full bushel of corn to get a tablespoon of corn oil and utterly nobody would (ever) eat a bowl of cotton seeds!

Now let's look at what we know to be fact in the context of body mass regulation.

Hunger (the desire to eat) is largely mediated by leptin and the hypothalamus, a small structure in the brain.  This structure is responsible for regulating not only hunger but also body temperature, sleep, and thirst.  In short some of the most-essential regulatory functions are directly controlled by this part of the brain and still more are via other structures that it interacts with, mostly via and through hormones.  This has been known since modern medicine has existed.

Now here's the nasty piece of the puzzle nobody wants to talk about, but which I believe is key to the entire obesity issue:

Insulin is a leptin antagonist.

That is, quite simply:

The higher your insulin level the less active leptin is in signaling satiety.

Therefore insulin resistance is in fact a severe problem, even when it occurs at a level that is sub-clinical and does not result in an increased blood glucose level as long the body is able to produce enough insulin, and your cells are still able to respond, to hold blood glucose within normal limits.

The harm is due to the fact that irrespective of your ability to maintain a normal blood sugar that elevated insulin level still results, in every case, in a desire to eat more food.

That is the condition of an elevated insulin level tips the balance of the body's signalling and thus makes unconscious control of caloric intake within the required tolerance, given access to food in excess of metabolic requirements, virtually impossible.

This then leaves you with only voluntary caloric restriction (e.g. "dieting") as an option which we know you cannot maintain over the long term as the precision required cannot be met through conscious control.

Worse, the divergence between needs and desires is all in one direction -- overeating and if your "diet" is a low-fat one where the substitution is made with carbohydrates you make your desire to overeat worse.

This is why when you cease dieting you almost-invariably gain all the weight back plus more -- your "dieting" has in fact done more damage to the metabolic systems that control your desire to eat!

Again, that insulin is a leptin antagonist is not a theory it is a biochemical fact.

The only means by which one can resolve the problem at a biochemical level is to remove the leptin antagonist.

Achieving that requires lowering insulin levels, and that can only be safely done (without skyrocketing your blood glucose) by restricting carbohydrate intake, especially rapid-acting carbs such as sugars, grains and starches.

It is not a coincidence that this is a corrective action in that it coincides with removing "foods" from your diet that your body was never designed to process and in fact at no time in our evolutionary history did such "foods" exist.  Those who make claims to the contrary that the intake of such "foods" in any quantity whatsoever are "safe" have the burden of proof to show how the body can handle such intake without any of the normal biochemical processes going out of the normal range.

The body of evidence found in the form of rampant obesity and insulin resistance, all of which exactly correlates with the "war on fat" by medical "authorities" and substitution of fast-acting carbohydrates in its place, strongly suggests that these foods are not safe and cannot be made safe; they can only be avoided or the consequences of consuming them accepted exactly as the correlation with smoking and transfasts correlated exactly with the rise in heart disease with the expected 20-30 year lag!

"Mindful eating" will not change your insulin levels nor improve your body's leptin signalling.

Getting the pasta, potatoes, rice, sugars and grains out of your diet, on the other hand, will. If you want the full list read this article.

As a "side effect" of following same, if you actually do it, I predict that your pants will fall off.

There is excuse-making and then there is an entire damned industry that works its level best to asset-strip you to your underwear so your fat ass (and the rest) hangs out.

“The key point is that you can be on TV, you can lose enormous amounts of weight, you can go on for six years, but you can’t get away from a basic biological reality,” said Dr. Schwartz, who was not involved in the study. “As long as you are below your initial weight, your body is going to try to get you back.”

Well sure, if your "path" to weight loss is to eat damn near nothing (e.g. starve) and run your metabolic demand through the ceiling by engaging in extremely intense exercise.

Look at the quotes: "It's hard.  The cravings are there."

But the kernel of truth is right here:

“There is a lot of basic research we still need to do,” said Dr. Margaret Jackson, who is directing a project at Pfizer. Her group is testing a drug that, in animals at least, acts like leptin, a hormone that controls hunger. With weight loss, leptin levels fall and people become hungry. The idea is to trick the brains of people who have lost weight so they do not become ravenous for lack of leptin.

Pfizer wants to sell you a drug, of course.

But what if you learned that hunger is largely regulated by leptin, leptin response is largely mediated by insulin levels, and it is what you eat, not how much, that is almost-entirely responsible for insulin levels?

Guess what: That all happens to be true.

What is being discussed here is that the contestants on the show The Biggest Loser basically poisoned their metabolism through the path they engaged in -- that is, extreme caloric restriction coupled with intense exercise.

But the "big lie" is right here:

“What was surprising was what a coordinated effect it is,” Dr. Proietto said. “The body puts multiple mechanisms in place to get you back to your weight. The only way to maintain weight loss is to be hungry all the time. We desperately need agents that will suppress hunger and that are safe with long-term use.”

Agents, of course, means drugs.  Yeah that's a great idea -- hand over $10,000 a year forever to someone for a pill that will probably have side effects that destroy your life (eventually.)

Look at what they had these people eat:

His routine went like this: Wake up at 5 a.m. and run on a treadmill for 45 minutes. Have breakfast — typically one egg and two egg whites, half a grapefruit and a piece of sprouted grain toast. Run on the treadmill for another 45 minutes. Rest for 40 minutes; bike ride nine miles to a gym. Work out for two and a half hours. Shower, ride home, eat lunch — typically a grilled skinless chicken breast, a cup of broccoli and 10 spears of asparagus. Rest for an hour. Drive to the gym for another round of exercise.

Mother of God will you stop killing yourself?

Look folks, fat in the diet is not fat on the body.  This sort of "diet" is nothing other than starvation and it's stupid.

What's the problem?  Right here:

His slow metabolism is part of the problem, and so are his food cravings. He opens a bag of chips, thinking he will have just a few. “I’d eat five bites. Then I’d black out and eat the whole bag of chips and say, ‘What did I do?’”

Get the damned chips out the house!

Oh, and the rest of the carbs.

You're not sick because you're fat (and cut the "shaming" crap, facts just are) you're fat because you're sick and you're sick because you refuse to stop eating things that make you that way.

Look folks, I know you don't want to hear it because you're all looking for a drug and an excuse.

That's why you lose 10, 20 or 30lbs, then put it all back on with interest.

You can't stop eating pasta, potato chips, pizzas and bread.... Really?  You're willing to trade being fat and ultimately developing diabetes causing you to have your toes chopped off one by one as they turn gangrenous, along with losing your eyesight and ultimately your life, rather than getting the damned potato chips out of your house and not calling Papa Johns or Dominos?  REALLY?

You do understand that your body's metabolic system is capable of handling quite the level of insult before it breaks, right?  That you "pass" the common glucose test (OGTT) or have a normal (or marginal) A1c today does not mean you have not accumulated decades of such damage and that while there is a test to determine this (OGTT+insulin assay) it's expensive and insurance will not pay for it since it doesn't diagnose a disease that is occurring now.

You do understand that the majority of adults in America and damn near everyone over the age of 60 are metabolically compromised by decades of eating fast carbohydrates and vegetable oils, even if you do not today show evidence of diabetes and related diseases, and that if you are overweight, even only somewhat, or obese it is a virtual certainty you're one of them irrespective of age, right?

I've been there and done this over the space of a couple of decades.  I too poisoned myself because I was ignorant and believed that if I ate fewer animal fats, more vegetable oils and more carbohydrates while simply exercising more and eating less I'd lose weight and keep it off -- along with avoiding said disease.

Everyone who told you this either didn't know what the hell they were talking about or was lying.  The results were the same as they are for most of you -- slowly but inexorably increasing body weight.

Then I changed what, not how much, I ate and my body's regulatory system healed over time.  Is it completely healed?  I'm sure it's not, and if I was to go back to eating how I used to eat all the weight I lost and probably more would come right back on -- and quite quickly too.

But guess what?  You can do it too.  I don't care how fat you are now or how long you've been fat.  I don't care if you've yo-yo dieted before, or engaged in some sort of extreme attempt to lose weight.

You're overweight because you have poisoned the regulatory systems in your body that control your desire to eat.  You almost-certainly poisoned them unintentionally but whether it was intentional or not does not matter; what matters is that it happened and unless you change what you eat the damage will continue to accrue over time and at some point it is very likely it will manifest itself as clinically-diagnosed disease.

To succeed in allowing your body to repair itself to the degree it can, however, you are going to have to do two things: Stop making excuses and stop looking for answers in a damned pill bottle -- or a surgeons office.

The answer is found in what, not how much, is in your pantry and refrigerator.

Read this article.  Bookmark it, print it, whatever.

Go through your house -- pantry, fridge and freezer.  Throw anything on the "don't eat list" in the trash can and never let it come back into your home or pass your lips when you are somewhere other than at home.

Go to the store once you've thrown everything away on the "don't eat list" and re-stock your fridge with things on the DO eat list.  Note that almost none of them will go in the pantry because the pantry is for things that are shelf-stable and processed.  A few will go on the counter that are going to get eaten within a couple of days but the rest go in either the fridge or freezer.

Don't tell me that you can't do it because you can do it.  You can do it when you're home and you can do it when you're eating away from home.  If you absolutely must have a sub sandwich when out go to Jimmy Johns and have them make it as a wrap; they will, in lettuce -- or if you want then go to Subway and have them make your "sub" as a salad (same thing but with the lettuce chopped up and thus less-convenient to eat "on the go.")

If you're overweight your pants will shortly try to fall off, but more-importantly your body knows how to regulate its caloric intake if you stop poisoning the mechanisms that control it.  When you reach an appropriate weight - which is not one where you're "large", but rather a body mass that looks like a normal, not-fat person in every case (no, you're not "special" in that regard: You're not "big-boned", you're fat) the weight loss will stop all on its own without you making a conscious decision to do so.

Here's the thing, however: You can't get there from here if you "diet" because as soon as you stop "dieting" you will go back to poisoning your body's metabolic signalling system and the weight will come right back on.  In fact it may come back on faster than ever because some of the damage you've accumulated is probably permanent.

This is not a matter of "blame" it is a matter of fact -- whether you undertook what you did because you were stupid, you got bad advice from so-called "professionals" or any other cause doesn't matter.

You are an adult and thus you are responsible for the outcomes that occur when you listen to various people no matter who they are.

If you take someone's advice and it doesn't work but you keep doing what you were told would work why in the hell would you keep listening to them?

Look folks, do it for 30 days.  That's all.  I'm no doctor but I can tell you what works because it did after a couple of decades of the "conventional advice" not working.  I can also point you to the comments here from others who also had it work with some of them having ridiculously dramatic results when it came not so much as to weight (in that short amount of time) but metabolic markers of serious disease such as their blood sugar.  This isn't something that was a "fad" or an undertaking that I "recently" did and thus can't give you any sort of honest answer on whether the weight I lost will stay off.

You want to know how many people I've run into who have actually done this and not had it work?  Zero.  Every one of the people I've been acquainted with that failed has admitted they just didn't do it.  They ate the pasta.  Or the potatoes.  They called Dominos and ate the pizza.  Or they just "had to have" the pie.  Or sugar in their coffee.  They had the craving, they had a bad day exercising and had to "add back" some carbs (even though they were less than a week into it), and on and on.  Rather than tough it out for a few days, literally, knowing it would go away in a few days to a couple of weeks (like a cold does) if they just kept at it, they didn't.

It didn't fail -- they simply didn't do it and they admit it.

I changed my lifestyle in this fashion in 2011.  I used no drugs, no doctors and no surgical interventions -- nothing other than what I stuffed in my pie hole and had in my house.  I did it despite having a kid at home at the time who refused to give up her Doritos, M&Ms and similar.

Despite the bad stuff being present I didn't eat them, choosing instead to reach for the broccoli or piece of leftover zero-carb roast.

If you're one of the millions of Americans who have heard that it's all "hormonal", that you need "help", that you have a "damaged" metabolism and "it's not your fault" or that nothing other than invasive surgery or drugs (and perhaps not even then) will make a long-term difference what do you have to lose by trying?

Do you really think that a month or two of changing what you eat is going to do some critical damage that all those years of piling on the pounds hasn't?  Are you really too lazy to go spend under $50 for instrumentation that will (largely) last virtually forever to test a hypothesis on your body and your metabolism and give you objective results by which to measure whether it works or doesn't?  I don't think there's anywhere in this country that's more than a 20 minute drive from a WalMart these days and if there is Amazon covers every US address within a couple of days (even without Prime) so there's simply no excuse other than willful refusal.

You can't argue with objective numbers so if you don't have them because you won't go buy the $20 worth of stuff to obtain them in the privacy of your own home where nobody else can ever see them then the only excuse is that you are consciously refusing to put such a change in eating habits to an objective, personal test.

If you're happy with being overweight or obese, or worse you expect someone else to either fix it or give you a pill then shut your pie hole and deal with the consequences of your choice.  A choice that, I remind you, given our corrupt and extortionate medical system will bankrupt you as well as having a high probability of making you both sick and ultimately dead.

Or, for nearly zero money you can change, what, not how you eat -- not as a "diet" but as a lifestyle and as a side effect it is highly like that your pants will fall off.

Your choice.

The medical industry doesn't want you to read this.

Nor does the food industry.

But you should read it, and let it sink in.

There is a lot of BeeEss flying around about low-carb eating.  Here are some common myths and truths related to this lifestyle.

• Myth: It's a "fad diet."  Eating low-carb is a lifestyle, not a diet and it is not a fad.  In fact humans, prior to the discovery of high-density agriculture, almost-exclusively ate in this fashion.  A "fad" is an unproved and new way of doing something without examination as to validity.  It is in fact the modern mania with vegetable oils, nearly none of which exist in nature, along with other highly processed foods such as cereals and sugar-laden things, driven by literal billions of advertising dollars, that is the fad.  Nobody spends a billion dollars advertising broccoli crowns on TeeVee!
  
  
• Myth: Low-carb eating means not eating vegetables and fruits.  Nonsense.  For nearly everyone who decides to eat low-carb their consumption of vegetables greatly increases, especially when it comes to green vegetables.  There is no restriction whatsoever in the consumption of things such as spinach, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cucumbers and its soaked-in-vinegar friend the dill pickle, various forms of peppers and similar.  Small, nutrient-dense fruits and berries, along with nuts, are also compatible in amounts comparable to that which would be found "in season" naturally.
  
  
• Myth: Low-carb eating means not getting enough fiber.  Oh really?  All those vegetables are an insufficient source of fiber?  Like hell; what's missing is the artificially-added back fiber that people love to crow about in things like bread, which wasn't there in the first place due to all the processing.  I suppose if you want to eat what amounts to cardboard (cellulose) that has been put back into a processed food so it can claim to be "high fiber" then yes, it means "not getting enough" but the last time I checked cardboard wasn't a naturally-occurring thing nor would you find it tasty -- unless it was slathered with sugar.  Guess what gets added to these "foods" to make all that added-back fiber palatable?  Yep.
  
  
• Myth: Low-carb eating means not having enough energy since you don't have carbohydrates.  Fact: Your body, even if you're very slender with zero perceptible fat on you, has enough fat in storage to run ten marathons without eating, yet you can't even run one with a maximum load of stored carbohydrate.  Your stores of glycogen, which is what carbohydrate is metabolized into in the body, are limited to about 2,000 calories at most.  Even the leanest person has five to ten pounds of fat stored on them (and most have a lot more) with each pound being 3,500 calories.  You do the math.
  
  
• Myth: You need carbohydrates.  Fact: There are no essential carbohydrates.  There are essential fatty acids and protein complexes, along with ascorbate (vitamin C) that your body cannot synthesize, but no such thing exists for carbohydrates.  The exact amount of carbohydrate your body requires is zero.
  
  
• Myth: You can't perform athletically without carbohydrates.  Fact: Athletic performance, especially for endurance events such as running at double-digit mileages, is not only possible without carbohydrates it in many ways can be superior.  During heavy exertion the digestive system is effectively shut down because the body shunts its energy resources to the skeletal muscles to drive that performance.  Since carbohydrate stores are limited to about 2,000 calories and a mile of running requires somewhere between 100 - 120 calories to sustain plus your base energy requirement (another 150 calories/hour or so) during longer endurance events you're constantly "dancing with the devil" in attempting to consume carbohydrates and digest them while your digestive system is barely functional.  If you lose this dance you either vomit or have an immediate need to relieve yourself out the other end -- and both of those events come with dehydration, which is very dangerous when exerting yourself heavily.  By contrast when running on lipids (fats) even the leanest athlete has more than enough fat in their body to run several ultra marathons back-to-back and thus need consume nothing in the way of food, requiring only hydration and electrolytes that can be immediately absorbed by the intestines.  Further, studies have shown that those who are low-carb adapted burn much more fat during exercise than those who run into glycogen-deficit due to lack of carbs during a workout.  In other words if part of your fitness goals include losing or maintaining body mass then being keto-adapted, that is, eating low-carb, will make your exercise far more productive in terms of losing weight -- 2.3x as much, to be precise.
  
  
• Myth: There's nothing to eat, it gets boring fast, and nutrient quality is poor.  Fact: See the below list; virtually everything available to eat before the introduction of cheap international transport and "factory" foods is compatible with low-carb eating.  Any form of animal flesh, eggs, cheeses, most vegetables and modest amounts of fruit and nuts are what make up a low-carb dietary intake.  In addition virtually all spices are zero-carbohydrate and can be used without concern as to quantity.  When you eat a lot of carbohydrate you're targeting caloric intake since high-carbohydrate foods have very low nutrient levels.  The poster child for this is of course sugar, which other than carbohydrate has essentially zero nutrients, but it doesn't end there.  Most high-carb starchy foods have very low vitamin and other nutrient loads compared against foods such as broccoli, kale and similar.  Broccoli, for example, has your entire Vitamin C and K requirements in one serving along with a very high nutrient and protein balance score yet nets only 31 calories per serving and 6 grams of carbs, 2 of which are indigestible (fiber.)  Rice, on the other hand, has a very low nutrient balance score, a decent protein balance, 205 calories/serving (6.6x as much!) and 45g of carbs yet only one gram of fiber (1/4 as much.)  It also fails to provide any material amount of your vitamin requirements; the only related item that measures reasonably-well is folate.  On the other hand when you eat low-carb your nutrient levels are naturally very high since those non-animal-source foods compatible with low-carb eating are sparse in calories.  In short, assuming you consume the same caloric intake, what you "crowd out" when eating high-carb is nutrition while what you "crowd out" when eating low-carb is junk.
  
  
• Myth: Low-carb means eating a very high amount of protein.  Fact: Low-carb eating contains moderate protein levels.  Very high amounts of protein in fact are not "low-carb" since protein, when taken in beyond metabolic needs, is converted to glucose in the body.  That would be the opposite of what you're intending.  Don't trim the fat off your steak, consume it instead.
  
  
• Myth: Your cholesterol balance will go to hell on a low-carb diet and you'll have a heart attack.  Fact: HDL typically goes up and LDL typically goes down, which is good, not bad.  However, there are several flies in the ointment of the common rubric regarding cholesterol, dietary fat and heart disease, not the least of which is that the correlation in several studies, including recent studies, has been backward. That is, increased carbohydrate and PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids -- read, vegetable oils) intake is associated with increased, not decreased, ischemic heart disease.  Want to have a heart attack?  Eat carbs and vegetable oils.  Seriously, I'm not kidding.
  
  
• Myth: You won't stick with it even if you try it.  Fact: If you really do keto-adapt it is unlikely you'll ever return to eating high-carb foods en-masse.  Why?  Because you'll find them to be too sweet and no longer tasty.  Sugar and its analogues are quite-addictive, and like most addictive things their "dose response" goes down the more you use them.  That is, after a while a given amount of sugar doesn't taste "sweet" any more, so you add more to get the same "sweetness."  Stop consuming sugars for a few months and suddenly even a tiny amount tastes too sweet, and is no longer pleasant.  In addition once you become keto-adapted you are no longer a slave to food.  People are utterly shocked to find that I often wake up in the morning and have no desire to eat anything until somewhere around lunchtime!  They wake up famished every morning and immediately hit the pancakes, cereals and breads.  I did too, until I went keto-adapted and that all disappeared.  If you've ever been "hangry" it's because you're actually experiencing withdrawal from the addictive nature of fast carbohydrates.  If you enjoy being a slave then may the chains rest lightly on your back, but just remember that this form of slavery comes with greatly-increased risks of heart disease, obesity and diabetes.  Are you sure it's worth it?
  

Once again, for those who missed it the last time, here's the "don't eat" list:

• Anything with added sugars on the label irrespective of amount.  If a word ending in "-ose" is on the label, it's a sugar.  Maltrose, dextrose, sucrose, fructose, etc.  All are sugars.  Go through your cupboard and throw all those packages and cans out, and don't buy any more of them.
  
  
• Anything with man-made PUFAs in it.  There are two basic types of PUFAs -- Omega-3 and Omega-6.  Omega-3 is good for you in reasonable amounts and is almost-exclusively found in the flesh of animals, including most-especially fish.  Omega-6, on the other hand, is found naturally in most plant material.  The problem is that the amount found in plants you eat whole is tiny but when concentrated into man-extracted oils from vegetable sources you wind up consuming thousands of times more of it than you ever could by eating the actual plant.  Cottonseed oil, for example, is full of this stuff, yet you'd never sit down and eat a bowl of cotton seeds!  Likewise, you'd have to eat something like two bushels of corn in a single sitting to get the amount of PUFA found in one tablespoon of corn oil, but it is utterly trivial to consume that amount in baked goods.  This is true for all vegetable oils.  The only exception?  Small amounts of olive oil are reasonable used as a salad dressing.  But you should never, ever, cook with vegetable oils including sauteeing, frying, basting or similar because the fact that they're unsaturated means they oxidize rapidly and heat makes them oxidize more and faster.  The "switch" to vegetable-based oils in fryers has probably killed more Americans in the last 40 years than all other causes of death combined.  By the way, if you want the worst of the worst they come in the form of anything that has the word "hydrogenated" on the label.  Those are PUFAs that have been chemically stabilized so they are a solid and don't spoil while on the shelf in the store.   Let me be crystal-clear: The amount of PUFA you can safely ingest, and thus should ingest, is zero, with the exception of room-temperature olive oil used as a salad dressing or similar.  That section in your grocery store is IMHO "heart attack in a bottle."
  
  
• "White", starchy vegetables and plants.  This means rice, potatoes and similar.  Rice and potatoes are peasant food.  If you'd otherwise die they're acceptable, I guess, but I'd hardly call them my first choice. Rice I've already covered but potatoes aren't far behind.  Their nutrient balance is severely skewed and, frankly, sucks.  With 63g of carbs and 278 calories in one large (300gm) potato, while they have a decent amount of fiber (7g) and a good protein balance the rest is lacking.  Of the vitamin complex only C and B6 are well-represented, and only half of your needs (compare against Broccoli.)  The real problem with starchy foods is that they're carb-dense but nutrient-poor on balance which means they're not only incompatible with low-carb eating they will probably crowd out the nutrient-dense vegetables you should eat.  Since these tend to digest quickly they also provoke a large insulin response.  Note that any of these fried in PUFAs, such as french fries, dramatically multiply the trouble.  These "foods" are served in restaurants (e.g. xxx "over rice" or xxx "with fries") because on a per-calorie basis they cost almost nothing.
  
  
• Grains (especially wheat) and anything made with them.  Cereals and similar are even worse than starchy vegetables in that the fiber is nearly-all absent as processed and thus has to be added back.  Whole-wheat bread has a horrible protein quality score, is very high in carbs with 2 slices having 24g all on its own (20 of which "count" as there are 4 of fiber) and a modest nutrient balance.  Store-bought breads and cereals, however, almost all contain hydrogenated oils -- that is, the worst sort of PUFAs.  In terms of insulin response grains are almost-indistinguishable from table sugar and some are actually worse.  Yes, this means no pizzas, pastas and similar.  Again, the reason that hamburger comes on a bun at the restaurant or drive-thru is because on a per-calorie basis it costs pennies; to get the same calories with that burger wrapped in lettuce you'd need another patty that contains actual food.

So what do you eat?

• Green vegetables such as spinach, kale, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cucumbers, etc.  All are high in nutrients, low in calories, very low in carbohydrate and glycemic load and most have a good amount of fiber as well, all of it being naturally-occurring (not "added back.")  Frozen is fine; fresh is ok if you prefer it but there's no nutritional difference that's material.  Update: Oxalates are potential trouble for some people even in small amounts, and in very large quantities probably trouble for many. Spinach is one of the few green vegetables with high levels of that specific compound so you might want to avoid it.
  
  
• Modest amounts of fruits are fine, eaten whole, approximating what you could obtain in season.  Note that neither fruits or vegetables should be "juiced" or otherwise processed; doing so grossly speeds up the absorption of the sugars and destroys much of the fiber value!  Eat your strawberries, in other words, as strawberries, not as a component in a "smoothie."
  
  
• Full-fat cheeses are perfectly ok; they have a near-perfect (75-80/20-25) balance of fat:protein.  Do not buy the "reduced fat", "2%" or similar cheeses.
  
  
• Eggs likewise have a decent balance of proteins and fats, eaten whole, although they are a bit protein-heavy.  Eschew the "eggwhite" and "eggbeaters" nonsense; break actual eggs and prepare them as you wish (it's perfectly ok to cook them first if you want them hard-boiled!)  On mass eggs have about 6 grams of both fat and protein, but since fat is 9 cal/gm the energy balance (which is what you care about) is 1.5:1 in favor of fat.  This means about 40% protein, 60% fat when you do the math; the goal for a non-athlete is around 20-25% of intake from protein, so they can't be your primary source but they're good overall.
  
  
• Full-fat meats and fish.  Pork, chicken, beef and similar are all fine but do not trim or remove the fat portions.  This means you eat your chicken skin-on, eschew the "skinless" chicken breast in favor of the complete version and eat it all.  For steak, consume the fat and do not trim it; same with pork.  For fish prefer fatty fish such as salmon and tuna.
  
  
• Reserve your excess fat, especially from bacon and sausage cooked for breakfast, and use it for cooking purposes -- such as sauteing or even microwaving vegetables.  If poured into a coffee mug it will keep for several months in the refrigerator without a problem.  If you're older than 40 your mother probably did this and she knew what she was doing.  For other cooking purposes (e.g. if you want to have an omelet and don't happen to have handy reserved bacon fat) use butter.   Coconut oil, incidentally, if you can find it without extra crap in it, is mostly saturated fat and is one of the very few exceptions to the "no vegetable oil" rule that can be used reasonably-liberally.  Be careful buying it however as much of it is stuffed full of hydrogenated crap which turns it into one of the worst instead of being in the "acceptable" column.  READ THE LABEL.
  
  
• Use all the spices you wish.  Virtually all of them are zero-carb and zero-calorie.  The same is true for hot sauces and such, but check the labels to make sure they're not stuffed full of sugars or hydrogenated oils.  Most are not but there are exceptions.

If you eat this way it is very hard to exceed 50g/carb a day.  As an example a cup of brussels sprouts has eight grams of carbs, only five of which count (3 are fiber and don't digest.)  If you eat a cup of those, two cups of broccoli flowers during the day in various snacks (8g more), one cup of green sweet pepper chopped up as a component of a main course or side for dinner (4g net) you'll have eaten quite a decent amount of vegetables yet you only consumed 17g of carbs net all day; you'd also have consumed just 108 calories.  You could triple that and still be ok on the carbs and yet have consumed just about 1/6th of your caloric intake requirement!

It then becomes a matter of choosing protein sources without trying to limit fats and, in fact, buying the cheaper sources tends to work better because the stores charge more to trim or otherwise remove the fats!  Between eggs, cheeses and animal products while intentionally leaving the fat content present you'll wind up with a low-carb diet that is very rich in nutrients and almost-completely absent in insulin-spiking carbs that also happens to be free of PUFAs that are associated with heart disease.

Oh, and you won't be hungry either; your body knows how to regulate its food intake all on its own if you simply stop poisoning the signalling pathways (largely mediated by leptin) that tell you whether you're hungry or not.

Welcome to waking up and not really wanting anything to eat until the middle of the day; a nice side effect of living this way is that your pants will fall off.