Most people have to consume a lot more than a spoonful of MCT oil before experiencing diarrhea, but I take your point. How does Betaine HCL help with that?

JS

Better have some Betatine HCL as MCT oil is likely to induce sever digestive tract upsets including loose stools at the most inconvenient times, as can coconut oil and any of it's derivatives. Indeed for me, a high fat meal of any kind can do that for me.

I don't think that is to much information as to the result of MCT oil etcetera, people need to know the results rather than finding out by experience, one can ruin a few sets of pant if one doesn't know what is likely to happen and the results.

You may need to compare the calorie content of your paleo food to what you were eating before: Paleo foods tend to be much more satiating despite containing less energy, so you might just be eating a lot less!

However, it's also very likely that you need to work on your metabolic flexibility, particularly since you mention carb cravings. This is where exercise comes in: not to "burn calories" or "lose weight", but to improve your met flex! Read my 2013 AHS presentation for more detail.

Finally, a small spoonful of fat can help you get through fasts. MCT oil in particular can give a nice little energy boost without tossing you out of the fasting state...and consumption is generally self-limiting because it 1. tastes like nothing and 2. often causes TMI if you consume too much.

I wish you the best!

JS

I have been following a lchf diet for nearly a year with some backsliding into eating more carbs and sometimes those processed carbage gluten-free foodstuffs to get me through a craving for the real stuff.

I rededicated myself to following the food plan of paleo/primal/GF/keto/lchf or whatever you want to call it, I find that even after eating to satiation, I get hungry 2-4 hours afterwards. I know there are no grains, gluten, sugar, or other stuff in it because I made it myself and didn't add these to my meal.

My portion sizes are larger then some I've seen and they say they go 6-8 hours without needing to eat again on the paltry amount they eat.

Help?

Yes.

Stated in terms of the presentation: foods with high availability require less incentive salience to consume them, and therefore require more willpower to avoid consuming them.

Foods with low availability require higher incentive salience to consume them, and therefore require less willpower to avoid consuming them.

JS

Unfortunately for the "sloth and gluttony" hypothesis, years of data clearly show that children get fat before they stop exercising, not the other way around -- strongly suggesting that lack of exercise is a consequence of obesity, not a cause. Furthermore, I have found no data to suggest exercise decreased in 1980, and quite a bit of suggestive evidence to the contrary (the late 1970s and 1980s were the peak of the running boom).

I believe the "finger-food factor" primarily results from two factors, both of which I discussed in the presentation. First, availability. All you have to do in order to snack is open the bag, whereas real food usually involves cooking and cleanup, and perhaps a trip to the store: therefore, you don't have to want snack food nearly as much as real food in order to eat it! Second, snack foods are generally devoid of complete protein, which I also address above (see "protein targeting").

Again, I strongly believe this is the best framework we currently have to understand hunger and appetite, because it explains our real-world experiences so well!

JS

Also, instead of mere hunger, what about the finger-food factor? At least for me, oreos and candy and potato chips are attractive because they are CLEAN -- not crumbly or greasy -- pre-prepared little packets of food you can pop in your mouth by hand on the go. No need for forks or dishes or napkins like messy steak and cooked veggies.

I absolutely encourage experimentation!  

However, it's important to journal carefully and remain skeptical, as confirmation bias is extremely powerful and it's easy to convince ourselves of just about anything.

See: Fan death.

And yes, metabolic flexibility is absolutely fundamental.  Without it the starch and sugar cravings will continue, glycemic control will remain poor, and you're still on the slow but steady road towards T2D. even if you're skinny.

JS

However, having cleaned up my diet over two years ago, I no longer have frequent sinus, throat, and ear problems. I'm now trying to follow Dr. Mew's recommendations: Teeth together, lips together, tongue on the roof of the mouth. I never realized how little space for my tongue exists on my palate until I began putting his advice into practice. I'm considering this my own personal n=1 to see how things develop over the next few years. As Dr. Mew said in a 21 Convention presentation: "I know I look better now than I did ten years ago."

Thanks for the reminder about "novelty" and the search for "the next big thing." Still, I suppose there's no harm in trying out something "new," and there are those who may discover some benefits from things like resistant starch. Personally, I've found out that there's only so much starch that I actually want to eat, and then I just don't want any more. The other day I deep fried French fries in some beef tallow I had rendered out previously in the slow cooker. They turned out great. But I didn't binge on them. It's certainly not something I would do every day, either.

I guess that's one of the benefits of becoming fat adapted and regaining my metabolic flexibility. I can eat some starch, but it doesn't induce insatiable cravings for more starch. I don't have to depend on "willpower" to stop eating. I'm looking forward to your next presentation. You'll let us know when it goes online...

I've been busy with research, both for my AHS14 talk and in general, on topics much more far-reaching than RS.  

Yes, it's important to have a healthy colon...just as it's important for all our organs to be healthy. (An unhealthy heart, lungs, liver, brain, etc. will kill you much faster than an unhealthy colon.)  However, what with all the provocation marketing and prima facie baloney, there is far more heat than light being generated at this time -- to no one's benefit. 

Remember: I called this one two years ago, in an article that is more relevant now than ever.

Yes, I'm familiar with the work of Dr. Mew: he presented at AHS2012.  There is strong experimental evidence for K2 being crucial in the development of facial structure:

Vitamin K — its essential role in craniofacial development

A review of the literature regarding vitamin K and craniofacial development

Andrew M. Howe, William S. Webster

Australian Dental Journal Volume 39, Issue 2, pages 88–92, April 1994

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1994.tb01379.x/abstract

"The normal vitamin K status of the human embryo appears to be close to deficiency. Maternal dietary deficiency or use of a number of therapeutic drugs during pregnancy, may result in frank vitamin K deficiency in the embryo. First trimester deficiency results in maxillonasal hypoplasia in the neonate with subsequent facial and orthodontic implications."

I think Weston A. Price and Dr. Mew are both correct: K2 allows proper growth of bone structure in the neonate, which allows proper nasal breathing in infants and children, which (along with actually using our jaws to chew) allows proper growth and development as we age.

JS

My interest of late has become focused on the other side of the GI tract. I stumbled upon the work of Mike Mew and Orofacial Myology. Now, while most people in the whole foods movement, especially those familiar with Weston A Price, are concerned about tooth decay and good dental arches, I've not seen anyone else approach the subject of facial construction from the more physical perspective. Yes, nutrition has a big role to play, but what about those of us who have already suffered the damage caused by diet and lifestyle in our developing years?

The fact is that our facial bone structure remains 'plastic' throughout our lives, and any neuromuscular disorder or poor lifestyle habit can cause our faces to 'melt' downward as we age. The conundrum for me is how nutrition works with skeletal musculature to deform civilized humans. I always assumed that it had something to do with lack of K2 and bone formation, but now I'm not so sure. The evidence seems to point to sinus inflammation that forces changed breathing and eating habits.

I know this is really off topic for this article, but maybe someone could objectively figure out the "chicken" and the "egg" about diet and facial construction. After all, who wouldn't want to look better, relatively speaking, as he/she ages?

FOX
I said one bite, cuss it!

KYLIE
I'm trying! I have a different kind of
teeth from you! I'm an opossum!

When you're on a road trip, the supermarkets are closed, and the alternatives are Carl's Jr. or a microwave "burrito", street tacos filled with cabeza, pico de gallo, salsa rojo, and a squeeze of lime start looking both tasty and healthy by comparison!

JS

Man, you did not eat enough meat that day, falling back on prey's food!! 😀 😀

Just kidding, I do buckwheat galettes and rice a couple of times a month myself 🙂