I've used it. I suspect it's just fine although it may not be any better than plain corn starch or any other slow carb.

I find it kinda funny that they advertise what it doesn't do. It doesn't spike glucose. You know what else doesn't spike glucose? Water. They show a graph of blood glucose over time with Ucan and maltodextrin. I'd be curious to see the control of the experiment where they show blood glucose of those who had water and perhaps another treatment where they had a different slow carb. If the Ucan line stays above the water and other carb lines, then they may have something.

But a better approach might be, and it's the approach of ~every top endurance athlete including those who train low-carb, is to keep adding sugar and keep that glucose peak up there. I heard this expert dude on scienceofultra and he said don't take slow carbs but rather use fast carbs slowly.

Again, Ucan is probably fine. Unique marketing strategy to market it as the carb for low-carb people.

I set a PR in my 5k, 10k and open HM landing in the 18:ss on the 5k. Set a PR in my local Sprint Triathlon race on just water. My longer event PRs have already been posted.
I am one of those who has a gluten sensitivity that made my family avoid me because of stomach "issues". I also had blood sugar issues that dropped, glucose around 32 with meter, every 2-3 weeks. I would lay on the ground with blurry vision and irregular heartbeat until somebody got me lots of sugar or I shoved gels into my system. I just dealt with it because that was normal to me. The doctors just told me to carry a Glucose gel pack and we kept them in the first aid kit at work. I carried several gels during runs no matter how short they were. All that is gone now. I don't need a scientific study to tell me this works for me.

My mother-in-law was diabetic. She had been on medicine to control it but tried keto and after 2 months she was off her medicine. She doesn't need a study to tell her it worked either.

I think you are getting it wrong here. What flat Landers are saying is that one size does not fit all. Not that LCHF is best for everyone.

So if a paper says it's not good then my results with it are not valid? Do you know how many things in life work great on paper but don't work well in practice? Do you see the obesity and health problems in the US right now? Do you see medical centers being built on every corner to capitalize on the problem? Do you notice health Care cost rising and small companies not being able to offer Health insurance to their employees because of the high cost? I couldn't perform eating the standard American diet. When I switched to LCHF I can now perform and feel better. I was showing you the facts of my life. I could have just did, "I am faster now" but what does that mean without showing before and after results? I improved on LCHF, not just in performance but my quality of life. Mentally and emotionally I have also improved. It has been very dramatic welcome change to my family and friends.

It seems you are not able to understand your own analogies with the flat landers. There is absolutely no science that can prove that one size fits all diet exists. His anecdotal evidence is proof of this, although it wasn't even required, as it is quite obvious. What I am saying is he nor anybody else in this thread that I can think of is claiming that that anecdotal evidence can be extrapolated.

Furthermore, what you call science is so biased by commercial and other spurious interests that I hardly take it seriously, or at the minimum with a grain of salt. At least in fields so variable as nutrition and exercise.

My mother-in-law was diabetic. She had been on medicine to control it but tried keto and after 2 months she was off her medicine. She doesn't need a study to tell her it worked either.

Exact same story for my sister. Except replace "keto" with "vegan".

I love how discussions with people pro LCHF, anti vaccine and flatlanders always end up with solid arguments. How is it relevant what your times are? For comparison I have been running for less than a year after I was in a wheel chair (on a high carb diet) and I can run sub 18 in training, I did a 37.30 10k during an olympic race last week on water only (because I forgot my gels which BTW would have aided me, not slowed me down).

In your book, is this a solid argument for a high carb diet? In my book it is not. We have research for a reason; to keep peoples feelings/experiences out of it.

Exact same story for my sister. Except replace "keto" with "vegan".

You can be keto and vegan at the same time. Fir some reason people misinterpret keto as carnivorian

You keep thinking in black or white. What I am saying is there is no black or white when it comes to nutrition. There is zero anecdotal evidence that drinking urine is good for me. I googled and failed to find it. I will repeat it again. my conditions are different to yours (primarily age and genetics, but also environmental conditions) and drinking urine maybe good for you and bad for me (I would have to try first before I can attest) just as much as LCHF might be good for me and bad for you. In fact all LCHF literature I have read clearly says that it is probably not adequate for around 25% of the population, and that the suitability increases as you age.

In addition, I think you and many people around here fail to understand the limits of science. A research paper documenting a study conducted with a small population group proves very little, other than the result is applicable to that population group. Specially in things like nutrition where it is impossible to control most of the variables. Conduct the same study with a completely different population group and the results might be completely different. Hell even anecdotal evidence proving the contrary of one of those studies will invalidate the results of the study as a universal theory.

Some things are black and white, which otherwise would have been at odds with the laws of physics. For instance, a popular statement in LCHF-communities is that you won't gain weight if you don't eat carbs. This is wrong, regardless of how many LCHF books you read stating that it is true. This is why we have science, to falsify a hypothesis.

Once again you are wrong. Some things are black and white, which otherwise would have been at odds with the laws of physics. For instance, a popular statement in LCHF-communities is that you won't gain weight if you don't eat carbs. This is wrong, regardless of how many LCHF books you read stating that it is true. This is why we have science, to falsify a hypothesis.

And science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would have stopped. One study doesn't say much, but replicating a study, with different people from different places and obtaining the same results again and again indicates a certain correlation. Continuing this process over time then gives us reason to believe that some things are more right than others. The alternative would be to start from the end result, work with ad hoc explanations every time those irritating science geeks come up with seemingly good arguments, accept that the theory doesn't hold water, come up with a number of people for which the theory works /does not work, say 25% of the population, without basing it on anything other than what the author seems to think is a plausible number, and shut down every time someone comes up with results that contradict your theory.

Oh, and last but not least: Third search on google using "drink my own pee",


"Is drinking urine good for you?

Reports dating back to ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt suggest that urine therapy has been used to treat everything from acne to cancer. There was a time when doctors tested for diabetes in urine by taste.
Today, proponents make similarly broad-based claims about urine’s curative powers. So, should you be mixing your morning pee into your morning smoothie? Probably not.
There’s no scientific evidence to support claims that drinking urine is beneficial. On the contrary, research suggests that drinking urine can introduce bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances into your bloodstream. It can even place undue stress on your kidneys. "

Now this theory seems older than LCHF. And science seems to be the only indication that it is not good for you.

I am afraid you have a reading comprehension problem. Some things can be proven by science, such as not eating carbs will lead to not gaining weight, because you can experiment with a calorimeter and conclude the opposite if the net calory intake is positive. What I said and you twisted is that in terms of what the best diet is, there is no single answer. The best diet will depend on your age genetics and environmental conditions. For some people it will be LCHF for others it won't. If you want to keep saying childish things about drinking urine go ahead of it makes you feel happy. However you will find zero evidence that it's good FOR ME.

I would definitely take a reading comprehension course if I where you. I am defending that there isn't a one size fits all when it comes to nutrition and you are calling me religious?

Keep having fun if you so wish.

What does autism have to do with seizures? You may have both or just one or the other. In any case ketogenic diets have been shown to improve intractable seizures.