Most likely. The amount of calories burnt by exercising is surprisingly low. Unless you really do a lot of it simply eating a bit less may be easier, esp. because you get hungry after exercising which easily leads to more intake than you have burned before.
I used to suffer from depression and anxiety. Meds didn't really help and I changed my lifestyle around. It helped. I do agree with you, exercise as well as diet is incredibly important if you want to feel normal.
The butter in the coffee supplies fat for fuel / energy, suppresses appetite, and does not contribute to weight gain or more specifically an increase in adipose fat tissue.
Simply cutting all calories is futile. Your body needs energy to sustain itself. The point of keto diet is replacing carbs with a significant increase in fat (~70% give or take) as a percentage of calories consumed.
But it is crucial to actually consume a lot of fat, not just try to cut overall calories.
Edit: I get the point that it stops hunger, but my point still stands, and the parent posters still doesn't make a great deal of sense.
The reason you put butter in your coffee instead of a spoonful of say, sugar, is that fat takes a long time to digest and even a fairly small amount of it (a table spoon of butter in your coffee) takes a while to digest. During that time period your hunger sensation is suppressed.
Coffee also promotes weight loss because it speeds up your metabolism. The idea behind buttered coffee is fairly simple. Put enough fat in your coffee so that you don't get hungry and eat a meal and you help extend your natural faste - and your morning coffee helps speed up your metabolism.
http://paleonick.com/articles/Bullet-Proof-Coffee
There are good reasons for drinking buttered coffee even if you're deliberately trying to avoid weight loss i.e you are following a net neutral or net positive caloric intake diet. When you're fasting your body isn't spending energy digesting food which means less of your body's immediately available resources aren't spent digesting food.
Even if you're getting calories from your coffee it doesn't impact your weight loss because you're still eating less calories than your body needs to maintain the weight.
This is completely dependent on other factors. Weight loss is dependent on a hell of a lot of things in tandem. It is mathematically strictly better to say, drink only black coffee or sugar-free energy drinks in the morning. Caffeine is an appetite suppressant. The difference is that most people don't have the personal willpower to stick to the fasting without a few calories to help them along.
Weight loss in general is precisely mathematical in pacing and it will absolutely make you lose weight faster if you consume less calories.
You are ignoring an important factor: If you don't have enough calories the body will switch to starvation mode, you'll have low energy, be cold, etc.
The net result is that, unless you are actually starving (which is bad for you), you'll actually lose less weight that way!
This is a myth which has been proved to be absolutely false. You are simply wrong if you are basing any conclusions at all of of this.
I'm perfectly willing to be shown that I'm wrong, but I'll need more than just a sentence from you saying so.
You said "proved" - can you show me the proof?
Probably the best and most researched article on this.
Bullet point 4 here: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun... has an article reference.
Basically, you can certainly go into starvation mode, but not in any reasonable amount of time. Skipping meals or even fasting for a whole day will not cause "starvation mode". Prolonged calorie restriction can affect hormones like Leptin and affect energy expenditure.
https://authoritynutrition.com/3-reasons-why-bulletproof-cof...
I guess it might seem specifically OK for people on Keto diets only, but still, it seems worrisome longterm.
Gary Taubes was the person who I learned from the most, many years ago about high fat, low carb diet, and I have been following his advice ever since, to great success.
He has MANY videos on the internet, here is a recent one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA4a5fjMR74
His book "Why we get fat" is also a great, clearly written explanation of all this, and I highly advise you to look into the subject, with an open mind. You may be surprised.
Moral is, diet responsibly and pay for the metabolic panels when dieting.
The other Keto adage is "calories count, but don't count calories". Meaning, if you eat a high fat diet, you naturally will feel full.
I kinda want to try and start again, it definitely had some benefits, as long as I managed to get enough calories and vegetables/nutrients (sorry I'm one of those persons that needs to take care they eat enough).
The big problem, however, is that in the mean time I've greatly reduced the amount of animal products from my diet--for environmental and ethical reasons, not health. And I'm not really sure how to do both.
I would need to spend a lot of money on almonds and other foods that may not seem that expensive until you need to consume them in bulk to replace the cheap, cheap carbs :) Being nearly-vegetarian is very cheap.
And even though I could probably hack the costs (or figure out something clever to do so), I'm not at all sure if it's even possible to live on a healthy keto diet while keeping my environmental impact footprint to a reasonable size that I can consider myself a responsible inhabitant of this planet. I don't think I can bring myself to eat very large amounts of meat again, even if they're organic certifiably happy cows. Tempeh has slightly more proteins anyway :p (also tastier than tofu, which is not a very high bar, I know)
Let me know if you make any headway! /r/veganketo helps.
p.s. I recently found that dumpster diving asian supermarkets I can get infinite supply of still-fresh packaged tofu, that has sure been helping!
I'm replying mainly to raise the point that, in my experience, there are people who can moderate successfully, and there are people that it is better to abstain completely. I fall into the latter. I will fall off the wagon if I don't abstain from the "forbidden fruits."
My wife on the other hand is very capable of moderation. I simply am not, and I suspect I'm not alone.
So it's good to know why type of person you are in this regard.
The best way I've found to combat this is to not buy bad snack items.
I tried it years ago, but found it to be more of a pain than it's worth (I seem to have better luck with intense exercise 3x per week and avoiding sugar). And it seems like tons of meat and cheese is actually bad long term, in the sense it clogs your arteries or increases cancer risk.
Atkins did not look like he was in good shape inside when he died.
It strikes me as a body hack that bypasses a lot of bodily processes evolution may have counted on as we developed. But it seems like we know a fair amount about the chemistry and processes involved, so I'm curious.
This is an inaccurate conclusion based on old studies where the subjects underwent a high-carbohydrate high-fat diet. Recent studies on ketogenic diets (low-carbohydrate, medium-protein, high-fat intake) shows that dietary fats and dietary cholesterol barely make any sort of impact on the subject's cholesterol. Rather it is dietary carbohydrates and genetics which are the primary contributor to raised cholesterol and arterial blockage. When it comes to arterial blockage, studies have found that there is no significant correlation between high dietary fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
>or increases cancer risk
Keto is primarily a high-fat diet, not a high-protein or high-carb diet. Studies have showed that a sugar found in red meats called Neu5Gc is primarily correlated with inflammation in the body and the development of certain cancers.
If you're on keto you're less likely to develop cardiovascular disease, and while there is not enough data yet to draw a scientific conclusion preliminary research indicates that individuals who follow keto are at less risk of developing cancer due to restricting sugar intake.
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/search?q=cancer&restric...
All of these posts link to multiple, verified studies which go into details about what I just said.
Cholesterol numbers are nowhere near the end of story, they're just markers. Rat and mice studies are useless for this purpose.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Preferably with published larger studies. In humans.
>Rather it is dietary carbohydrates and genetics which are the primary contributor to raised cholesterol and arterial blockage. So what about APOE4 individuals, which compose at least 20% of the population, who will see massively spiking LDL with higher saturated fat intake?
Yes, it's based on genetics, but also intrinsically tied to dietary (saturated) fat intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...
2. He did have a heart attack based from a genetic predisposition. His cardiologist said his condition was impeccable, considerint his diet.
The paradox is that keto diets, in the short term, seem to have a lot of great health benefits, yet all the blue zone diets are carb rich. My gut feeling is that for most people, the optimal diet in terms of health would be primarily high carb diet (with an emphasis on fermented foods and legumes), with occasional periods of keto dieting.
Intermittent fasting would be something that I imagine that most humans experienced wherever they lived however, and rat studies seem promising.
Yes, though all of them ate animal products and highly valued various animal fats.
That being said, we can find evidence of people eating all-meat diets in every corner of the globe, and often times if there were more agricultural people nearby, the carnivores were healthier and stronger (such as the Masai vs. the Kikuyu, the Sami vs. southern agricultural Swedes, etc.). Just because people were healthy eating one type of food does not mean they could have been even healthier eating another food if they had access to it.
Owsley "The Bear" Stanley, the famous LSD manufacturer and Grateful Dead sound engineer, lived very healthily on an all-meat diet for over 50 years. (Note: he did have cancer, though likely due to HPV and years of secondhand cigarette smoke and firsthand marijuana smoke, and his diet probably helped him survive it, and he had a heart attack, but that was likely due to complications from his youth that became noticeable after putting on 30 pounds of muscle weightlifting in his 50s.) He posted all about it on a forum years ago. It's a very interesting read: http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/ftopic22-0-0-asc-.php
Traditional Inuit also eat an all-meat diet with lots of fat. See Weston Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html#ch5), as well as the writings of Vilhjalmur Stefansson (http://highsteaks.com/carnivores-creed/vilhjalmur-stefansson... ).
The Plains Indians, as well. See "Guts and Grease: The Diet of the Native Americans" (http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/guts-and-grease-th...) and this talk by Stephen Phinney, "The Aboriginal Argument" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayf4R-y_RYo). Phinney himself has been on a very low carb, ketogenic diet for, I believe, two decades.
Some argue the Inuit were not ketogenic (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/reiterate-elevated-ketone.h...), but they tend to overestimate how long glycogen remains in muscles after death, as well as mistaking a lack of elevated ketones as meaning they weren't ketogenic (it's actually because they just use ketone bodies more effectively, which is why urine tests for ketosis only work during keto-adaptation). Dr. Michael Eades had a good article on this: https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2014/04/18/beware-confirmati...
Anyway, there's a lot more out there, but that'll get you started. I tend to believe an all-meat, ketogenic diet is the natural human diet, and I've had great success on it for the past year.
Other sites of note: http://www.ketotic.org/ http://www.empiri.ca/ https://zerocarbzen.com/ (There used to be an interview on this one with a family that has eaten nothing but ribeyes for the past 18 years. The whole family had tremendous health, and it even helped the mother overcome lyme disease. I thought it was fake the first time I read it. They unfortunately had to take it down because they were getting angry mail from angry vegans.)
Now, I've been doing a lot of thinking about my evolutionary history. My immediate ancestors are from central Asia / mideast but really don't know about anyone beyond great-grandparents. Observing myself, I seem to thrive in dry weather and feel horrible in humid weather (regardless of temp; winter moisture doesn't feel good either). This has led me to believe my "genetic preference" is for dry climates and possibly the foods found in arid places, which would probably be animals that feed on dry grasses and such.
I love fruits and vegetables, I have grown up eating lots of them, and salad everyday. However, I am open to skepticism, as right now in the last few days I've stayed home and eaten nothing but very fresh, healthy vegetables and fruit all day and yet still could not prevent this cold / congestion from taking root. I could not imagine eating zero vegetables for the rest of my life, though, it sounds ridiculous.
I'm fed up with generally being a low energy person, with chronic nasal congestion (inflammation, not mucous) maybe I will give this a shot. I don't need to lose weight, but I do want mental clarity and energy. I'm quite healthy "by the numbers," but a recent finding of almost deficient levels of Vit D and B12 leads me to believe that I require a high meat diet.
As for grass-fed vs. grain-fed, most of the arguments seem to center around omega-3, omega-6 ratios. The difference between grass-fed and grain-fed are negligible when you compare them to chicken and pork, let alone nuts and vegetable oils. If I could afford grass-fed beef, I'd eat it, but I think grain-fed beef is fine, especially in the United States. If anything, it has more marbling, so yum! For what it's worth, the Bear argued there was little difference nutritionally and that it had more to do with texture and flavor.
See: http://www.jbc.org/content/135/1/157.full.pdf
TL;DR Apple cider vinegar will decrease the glycemic index of food by interfering with carbohydrate digestion.
I rarely eat foods that are primarily carbohydrate based since that defeats the purpose of going keto, but if I do I try to find alternatives (sweet potato replacement for regular potatoes) and even then I severely restrict the amount that I eat. Sweet potatoes have important nutrients in them like beta-carotene, vitamin A, manganese and copper. It is as far as I'm aware always preferable to get vitamins and minerals directly from your diet rather than supplementation.
See http://www.yummly.com/recipe/Low-Carb-Potato-Salad---paleo_-... for an example of a keto friendly sweet potato salad.
For me at least it's important to get creative with what I eat. Staying Keto is a long term goal for me and while I started off doing Keto as a means to lose weight the immediate health benefits convinced me to stay Keto for the foreseeable future. While it's possible to do keto off nothing but cheese, bacon, avocadoes, eggs and low-carb greens such as spinach and broccoli it can get boring.
As long as my body stays in ketosis and I'm covering my body's nutritional needs I believe strict moderation rather than completely cutting all carbs is an acceptable way to diet. While it is completely possible to eliminate all carbs from your diet it is not requisite for staying in ketosis, though you of course do not have much margin for error before you knock yourself out of ketosis. Good news is it's much easier to get back into ketosis if you overshoot your daily carb allowance compared to the initial adaption period where you have to be very strict in order to adapt your body to keto.
For people who are dealing with insulin resistant type health conditions like diabetes type 1, 2 or even pre-diabetes there might be entirely different dietary requirements and a very strict emphasis on eliminating all carbs may be appropriate. When it comes to carefully managing health conditions with potentially severe health ramifications that's something which requires cooperation with a physician.
For most people, as long as you stay beneath the protein and carb limit you're completely fine.
A better alternative is cauliflower. It can be used in most of the same places as potatoes, but is an acquired taste for some.
Edit: There are 27g of carbs in a sweet potato. That's more than my entire daily allowance on Keto.
If you have any significant stores of body fat (15-18% body fat is the ideal for males, ~18-20% for females) your body is expending those fat stores in order to supply itself with the energy it needs. This makes it easier to stay calorie-deficient while on keto. During the past 7 months I've easily stayed calorie-deficient 80% of the time or more. I never go hungry, I eat whenever I'm hungry, I eat until I'm full and when I tally up the calories that usually puts me at or below 1500 daily calories.
Now this was the weirdest part of keto for me: When I'm doing intermittent fasting regularly I experience the most significant cognitive improvements.
All previous diets for me failed because I always felt like I couldn't think and do my job and needed to flood my system with calories in order to keep going... on keto I haven't had that feeling even once.
One thing I LOVE about IF is that my cravings have naturally leaned me in these directions. 1) I've been drinking more Gatorade because I craved it. 2) I've added salt, mayo, cheese to my sandwiches to 'make it taste better' even though prior to this diet, I'd have a fairly bland sandwich (no mayo, salt, cheese). 3) I also tend to crave high fatty/protein foods. Like burgers. (I don't tend to crave bad foods for me, Nutella might be bad...but it's keto-friendly. And I only eat it in moderation.)
I also added magnesium to my diet due to my nerves becoming unsettled.
It's remarkable. The things you suggest, my body has pushed me in the direction of your suggestions. One thing I noticed, is that I crave more Gatorade and now I know why. At first, I thought it was one of those 'unhealthy' cravings that pop up from time to time but...I think you're right, that my body needs it to aid in burning fat.
[1] - I know this is about a Keto diet. But IF (Intermittent Fasting) showed a lot of promise after I did a bunch of research on it and it's fairly similar to Keto but without restrictions. It's more convenient for my lifestyle (it exercises my willpower on fast days/times, quicker meals, condensed feeding times).
Namely, in my research, IF showed similar benefits as Keto but without the added hassle of changing the entire diet and learning a new menu. It also simplified mealtimes.
I do a hybrid of two different IF diets. 1) Saturday through Wednesday, I eat 'normally' without going overboard with foods. Also during this five day stretch, I only eat between 10am-3pm, so I'll be fasting from 3pm to 10am (19 hours every day). I'll eat ~3000 calories in that 5 hour window. 2) Thursday and Friday I eat only ~700 calories. I don't 'count', I just estimate one meal and it's eaten between 10am-3pm.
Heck, even Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) used IF to get ripped. http://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7403247/wolverine-diet-hugh-ja...
P.S. I'm 29. Lost 30 lbs (in 2-3 months). I have 40 lbs more to go. I might get there by the new year. I hope the info is helpful as it has been for me.
But...I had to upvote you because it made me laugh. I like the idea that my 'diet' isn't the "healthiest" way to lose weight but it sure is ENJOYABLE and that's 95% of the battle, imho.
Not gonna lie, the lure of Keto was the promise that it's easy to stick with in terms of how your body reacts to it. I just get so much more hungry when I'm off Keto even if my caloric intake is the same.
I've been on Keto for about two years now, and plan to eat this way for the rest of my life. I've gone from 235 to 180. Going from 245 to 235 took forever on a "normal" low fat diet.
My A1C and cholesterol have greatly improved.
I don't know what a normal low fat diet is, but the overruling factor in weight loss/gain is the ratio of work (exercise) to energy input (calories).
I want to see the same person:
'immobile
'sitting most of the time, with short commutes and shopping trips
'intensely exercising 1 hr a day
'actively working out throughout the day
The point isn't that exercise _can't_ work, it's that aiming for dietary changes has a higher average ROI than exercise.
No one has argued that there is a lower than average ROI (you get paid for not eating?) from exercise.
But it's more complicated than that. Genetics cause one's predisposition as to how responsive a person is to cardio; see the University of Bath study and/or Michael Mosley's "The Truth About Exercise".
I don't think you are off, but the key is not weight loss/gain...the key is healthy weight loss/gain and that has everything to do with what you consume.
Caloric source matters, your body does different things with different sources.
Your metabolism will be reduced by reducing calories in. They are not independent variables.
You want to lose weight, don't eat anything in a box, buy fresh whole food, plenty of veggies and fruits, and meat, cut out sugar, and it'll happen automatically. We're fat because of processed foods that have far too many calories in far too small a bulk that makes overeating so easy you don't even know you're doing it.
Everyone picks a diet. If you just randomly eat anything thats available to you, in the developed world, you are most likely significantly overweight and at very high risk of diabetes. With rare exceptions, most fad diets will leave you better off than with no guidance whatsoever. Sometimes pointing someone in the wrong direction is better than them walking off a cliff.
Diet science is definitely progressing and getting better. We knew the basics, like what happened when you didn't get enough vitamin C, but the rest of the details are finally getting fleshed out and accepted by mainstream science.
That said, people following the ketogenic diet need to be doing it correctly and under a doctor's supervision. If you half ass it you can end up just eating a shitload of bad fats and miss nutrients while not actually being in ketosis. That will not lead to a good outcome.
> but the rest of the details are finally getting fleshed out and accepted by mainstream science.
Uh, no, mainstream science is the only one doing the fleshing out; you're implication that they're behind and only now accepting what diet science already knows is anti-intellectual bunk. If it isn't mainstream science, it isn't science.
Its possible to get most of your calories from carbohydrates, protein, or fat. The question is what is the right balance for optimum health? How much does this value change across different people (and possibly at different stages of life)? If you have epilepsy then a ketogenic diet might well be best. How about for other people?
What macronutient profile is "balanced"? What do you even base it on? Should it be 33% of each? Should we eat protein and fat in just a little in excess of what we need (to get the essential fatty acids and amino acids) and get the rest from carbohydrates? I don't think we have clear answers to those questions yet. Although, I think we have ruled out some diets as unhealthy (e.g. eating a lot of refined carbohydrates can cause diabetes). Since eating too many refined carbohydrates is bad does that rule them out as a primary calorie source? Probably not, but we need more research.
Personal Note: I've eaten a low carb, high fat, moderate protein diet for about 4 years. All my blood markers (cholesterol, triglycerides, etc) have improved significantly over that time period. Additionally, I used to get incredibly hungry all the time and feel bad if a meal was delayed. Now I can go much longer without eating and still feel well.
> I've eaten a low carb, high fat, moderate protein diet for about 4 years. All my blood markers (cholesterol, triglycerides, etc) have improved significantly over that time period.
That's like saying I've been smoking for 4 years and I don't have cancer so smoking must not have any long term adverse effects; bad logic and insufficient sample size.
Yes, you actually have to be able to define what range of mixes counts as "balanced" before you can label anything as outside of that range. (And, moreover, if you want to credibly assign significance to that label, you probably also need to be able to provide evidence that your definition of "balanced" corresponds to a range outside of which there are serious negative consequences.)
No, you don't; for example, eliminating one is not balanced now matter what numbers you assign to balance.
Absolutely every thread on fat, sugar is filled with huge amounts of anecdotal evidence that is entirely worthless and delusional.
Fat people comment that they've lost weight by planning their diets more carefully (what a luck that it was keto), what a surprise.
I'm aware that being overweight is a huge issue in developed world and that most people easily lose weights on restrictive diets but it's all a fad.
You can't do both.
good thing that the physical reaction isn't equivalent despite the fact that calorical intake of that sugar is the same.
it's a huge shame not to consume fiber, or berries, or other fruits.
fruits were made by plants to prolong the life of the consumer, it's absolutely impossible to overdose on bananas if you aren't deliberately consuming huge amounts and aren't prepared to sit for hours on the bathroom.
Sugars generally digest faster than starches but this is not always true. Oranges (as in the whole fruit with its structure and fiber intact) raise blood glucose more slowly than potatoes, even though oranges are mostly sugar and potatoes are mostly starch.
This also means that slowly eaten sugar is healthier than quickly devoured complex carbs (if dental health is ignored). E.g. eating 50g carbs worth of candy steadily over 4 hours will result in stabler blood glucose than devouring 50g carbs worth of rice in 5 mins.
To the original point, if you consume fruit you're not really cutting out "sugar". The OP probably means added sugar.
Yes you can, because unless you're being obtuse, I'm obviously talking about processed white sugar, not fructose found in real food.
Why do you count this separately from "not overeating"? The important thing is to be calorie-negative to lose weight.
[1] - All you need is one teaspoon a day. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ENSA93S/ref=oh_aui_sear...
I'll also check out IF.
In the sidebar on the right there are two very useful sections labeled "useful links" and "related subs". I personally recommend the ketoscience, ketogains and ketorecipes subreddits depending on your goals. I guess I can't leave out ketoxx either if you're a girl.
In addition to that I recommend reading anything written by Dom D'Agostino who is widely considered the #1 authority on the ketogenic diet. Also read Mark Sisson's books. And finally I recommend Joe Rogan Podcast Ep. 752 - Mark Sisson. Rogan can be somewhat of a pothead/hippie but if you can look past that his guests are often very informative.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259
then, as others have said, reddit.com/r/keto is good for "how to"
Why sweet potatoes, they have more carbs than regular potatoes.
How do you achieve an adequate fiber intake?
Sweet potatoes have important nutrients. I do not eat significant amounts of sweet potatoes, and only eat them for the nutrients. A typical meal with sweet potatoes in them has far less than 100 grams of sweet potatoes in total. There's also things you can do to interfere with carbohydrate metabolization such as ingesting apple cider vinegar which contains acetic acid. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/comments/53kejq/acetic_...
I eat greens with fiber as well as psyllium seed husks. Broccoli and avocados are staples in my everyday diet.
I have no affiliation with them and don't drink it often but I can tell you that it tastes awesome.
A regular Ensure looks to have around 15g of sugars per serving, so it would not be conducive to a keto-type diet. For similar convenience there is a product called Ketochow - https://www.thebairs.net/ which I've found quite tasty.
There are downsides though. It's not cheap, it's restrictive and it requires you to build a fairly sizeable knowledge base in order to successfully maintain the diet and your own health. For instance your body consumes more water in order to burn fat stores which leads to the body burning through electrolytes more rapidly. It is very common to supplement electrolytes every day. It is common to drink broth while on Keto in order to cover the daily salt intake requirements of Keto, ~5000-7000mg every day on top of normal dietary salt intake. Failure to cover the daily electrolyte requirement will lead to muscle cramps and more severe symptoms brought on by electrolyte deficiency in the body. Prior to supplementing magnesium I experienced leg cramps and quickly realized what was going on.
However there are significant health benefits. Weight loss, improved mental clarity and better energy levels throughout the day, as well as less need for frequent meals are positive effects that a lot of people experience on Keto. It is also a useful tool for reversing lifestyle diseases such as diabetes type 2 and pre-diabetes.
When it comes to the stuff you "have to give up" while on Keto it's mostly a case of strict moderation rather than completely cutting things out. The things you do try to cut out though like bread, sugar, potatoes, pasta, corn-syrup etc have good alternatives available in most grocery stores. You can bake bread out of almond flour, make pasta out of almond flour (or have someone make it for you), replace potatoes with sweet potatoes and so on.
If you're thinking that keto sounds like it's too much hassle please leave me a reply and I'll gladly talk about whatever you're unsure about.