Yeah. My biggest problem with attempting low-carb is that X+rice and X+pasta and X+bread are all delicious for almost any value of X, while nearly all values of X on their own are fairly unappetizing. Beans and rice? YES. Just beans? I mean, I can, but I'll hate every bite. Veggie and tofu fried rice? Yes yes yes. Veggies and tofu alone? Uhhh... must I?

The exceptions tend to be expensive and the kind of thing that makes me feel kinda gross after eating more than a few bites of it anyway. Steak, say. Most meat on its own is like this, really. Just cheese. Veggies and cheese. Meat and cheese. Uck. Veggies and meat can work out OK on its own but, again, kinda expensive and still not as good as if you threw in some wheat products.

I have a suspicion that food without carbs being fairly unappealing is part of why many of the people doing keto lose weight so quickly.

Going vegetarian—and probably even vegan—would be far easier for me than a keto diet.

> Going vegetarian—and probably even vegan—would be far easier for me than a keto diet.

Agreed, especially since you can prepare pretty tasty (and visually appealing!) vegetarian meals. And I'm saying this as a meat eater!

If a life without pasta isn't worth living, then I'd rather die than get back on the blood sugar roller coaster that pasta puts me on.

This is like telling an alcoholic that life isn't worth living without tequila. You know what? Turns out you can live a meaningful life without it if you have to.

I'd recommend Miracle Noodles (aka Shirataki noodles), and I'd recommend to prepare them this way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7b5DITgHCQ

They are low carb, quite healthy, and don't make you miss Pasta.

My comment was tongue in cheek. Obviously, people with health conditions which prevent them from eating pasta can still enjoy life.

Do note that pasta is delicious, among the best things in life, and not at all comparable to tequila or with being alcoholic. Your comparison is extreme and unfair!

What were the effects of this "blood sugar rollercoaster"? I eat 55% carbs and don't experience this... What am I missing?

When I ate carbs (bread, sugar, pasta, etc) I used to get hypoglycemic between meals, which made me dizzy and sleepy. Without carbs in my diet, my blood sugar stays more constant and I don't get those hypoglycemic blood sugar drops.

Obviously I can only speak about my own case; it seems like there's a lot of variation in how different people's bodies process and respond to carbs in their diet.

Can you skip a meal without going through a withdrawal? A spike in blood sugar from a carb-heavy meal causes an insulin spike and, in turn, it drops the blood sugar below the healthy level, which is experienced as a feeling of hunger and a need to have the next meal or a snack (which in turn spikes sugar again, causing another insulin burst etc. etc.)

If I skip a meal I get hungry, but beyond extraordinary circumstances (like being extremely busy or fasting before a blood analysis), why would I want to do that?

> which is experienced as a feeling of hunger and a need to have the next meal or a snack

Why is this bad or surprising? Isn't this how things work? You don't eat ==> you get hungry. Similarly with water and thirst. I'm not being flippant, I genuinely want to know why someone would think this is surprising.

I am not dispensing life-style advise here but merely describing the effect of sugar/insulin rollercoaster.

Personally I don't like feeling of hunger so I don't do that. Getting hungry just a few hours after a meal is surprising when you got more than enough energy to last you several days already and your body has stored several months worth of energy in fat.

If you're limiting your calorie intake and have no weight issues then it is not, of course. You have used up all the energy from the food you have -> you will starve if you won't get more.