Sure. A smidge under 6 ft, about 13 stone and between 3000 and 3500kcal a day.
I don’t necessarily have a super low carb diet like keto (can never maintain the discipline) but I definitely aim for lower carb.
Nutritional science is always changing, just look at how our understanding of cholesterol has changed recently. Recently more and more links are being made between increasing levels of obesity and heart problems and the high carb low fat diet we’ve been pushed towards for so long.
Let’s use metric measures, please… so it’s 82kg, 1.82meters… age?
EDIT: For how long you’ve eaten low carb?
Anyway your numbers are ok. I wanted to show you that low carb prevents you from having an active life and forces you to have low caloric intake. But your current numbers don’t show this. I doubt you’ll be able to maintain this as you age unless you change your diet. To understand why, you need to buy some biochemistry books and start studying glucose and fatty acid metabolism. Wikipedia is a great start.
Our understanding of cholesterol hasn’t changed. Some misleading studies have been published to attempt to confuse people into eaitng more fat. The same for obesity and heart problems. There has been no change of anything fundamental in nutrition. There have always been the naysayers and they’ve always recommended high protein and/or high fat and/or high animal products, and they’ve always designed bad studies to back up their bad ideas. Naive people always fall in love with naysayers and their “rebel” theories.
2nd big EDIT: The one change that has happened is that we now “know” that some health problems that were blamed on animal fats (saturated fats) should be blamed on animal protein. This is simply because animal protein and animal fat tend to come together in our plate so it’s not easy to untangle the effects of one and the effects of the other. It was already known that vegetable fats like olive oil are tolerated decently.
Is metric age different to imperial? 
He didn’t say his age, or maybe I’ve missed it? 
I guess he is in 20s…
Doubt it…he doesn’t use metric, probably over 50.
If he is over 50 and eats 3000 cal a day of fat and then burns it at the gym, he should get a medal…
Lol, alas I’m quite far from my 20’s, but not quite 50’s yet. I’m 36.
Eaten low(er) carb for a long while. Properly (or at least consistently) I guess about a year or two.
I’m probably an anecdote though and my lifestyle is a little uncommon. Haven’t been to the gym for a year but I’ll hit 25,000 steps and cycle 20/30 miles most days of the week, that’s where the 3000kcal comes from.
Well, from what I’ve seen, bike is very popular among people who consume lot of calories. You travel and you also do exercise at same time. It’s perfect for health. Unfortunately I don’t have this habit. By the way, I’m also in my 30s, but i don’t eat 3000+ calories a day, even if recently I’ve started to eat more.
Anyway, like i said, burning fat instead of carbs is dangerous. But you can still get decent health outcome, as the great Ancel Keys pointed out with his “Mediterranean diet” studies. Olive oil is proven to be reasonably healthy. Coconout oil is probably a marketing scam. Animal fat we know for sure it’s a bad idea.
As far as I know, the only real valid reason to eat fat is when one wants to eat a lot of calories per meal. Like, more than 1000kcal per meal. The more you want to eat per meal, the more fat you need. This is just because the body has a limited ability to store carbs. But the more muscle you’ve, the more you can store.
Tristan, sorry for my curiosity, but what is your favorite source of fat? Coconut? 
I think it’s funny (and also sad at same time) that people fall for these marketing things…
Can you elaborate a bit on why coconut oil is a marketing scam? Huel has chosen to include some MCTs from coconut oil btw.
In defense of Huel, I can say two things. First, Huel contains only MCT, while coconut oil has only <20% of fats from MCT. Second, Huel also contains relatively small amounts.
Another thing, vegetable oils in general are not healthy food. Coconut is probably much healthier than coconut oil, like olives are much healthier than olive oil. Frying also is never good if you care about health, and if i recall correctly, coconut oil is worse for frying than olive oil despite all marketing.
Here are the sources for some of these claims (the claim on frying comes from somewhere else but I’ve forgot the source because I don’t really care about frying): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-about-coconuts-coconut-milk-and-coconut-oil-mcts/
Moreover I would say the burden of proof is on the coconut oil or MCT proponents to explain why it’s supposedly good. You have to dig deeper on their arguments to see if they’re really worth something. Probably they’re not. Don’t take nutritional advice from Google! Google results are all marketing.
Wikipedia is also interesting as usual but like all anonymous sources you’ve to check its claims for yourself. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-chain_triglyceride#Applications. Every time I hear weight loss, i expect the worst. You’ve to understand people are desperate to achieve weight-loss.
But coconut oil is a ‘healthy’* fat not just because of the MCTs’ direct benefits, but because they cannot be oxidised whereas many fats in some veg oils oxidise at frying temperatures.
*I use the word ‘healthy’ here as it’s already been brought into the conversation in this context; I loathe the term ‘healthy’ in respect to food and diet: the word ‘healthy’ should only be used to describe an individual.
That is not so, there are essential fatty acids i.e. they have to be eaten, cannot be produced by the body.
It consists mainly of saturated fatty acids, which most people tend to eat too much of, anyway. And lacks in unsaturated ones.
Klaire, I’ve not been taught, I’ve researched this topic for myself. What I’m saying is based on the well designed scientific studies. Let me quote this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full
Most experimental data in humans, however, contradict this view of the function of de novo lipogenesis. Initial studies in which indirect calorimetry was used showed little or no net de novo lipogenesis after short-term carbohydrate overfeeding (1). Subsequent isotopic studies confirmed the absence of quantitatively significant flux through hepatic de novo lipogenesis under most conditions of carbohydrate energy surplus (2,3).
Some more:
Additionally, McDevitt et al report that, in all settings, the total de novo lipogenesis flux represented a small fraction of both the surplus carbohydrate energy ingested and the total fat stored in the body. The authors calculated that between 3 and 8 g fat/d was produced through de novo lipogenesis compared with 360–390 g carbohydrate ingested/d and 60–75 g body fat stored/d. Thus, the addition of excess carbohydrate energy to a mixed diet so that total energy intake exceeded total energy expenditure (TEE) increased body fat stores, but not by conversion of the carbohydrate to fat. Instead, the oxidation of dietary fat was suppressed and fat storage thereby increased.
You can check the references there. The facts are available for you to see. Just don’t trust the online people because they may very well tell you bullshit. They may also give you good advices. Trust yourself only.
This AJCN article from 2001 is patently false. Apart from the obvious evidence of the increasing rate of obesity in the developed world since “the great” Ancel Keys work on demonising fat in the 1960s, and your flying cow distraction, you could maybe look at where the money comes from that backs this study.
A quick search on google (or askJeeves if you prefer) turns up this…
“Of the 12 members of the editorial board, only 3 disclose no corporate conflicts of interest, and 2 others disclose minor conflicts.
But the majority—7 of the 12—list major corporate affiliations. The list of food companies for which they consult or advise is too long to reproduce but it includes Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, The Sugar Association, The National Restaurant Association, ConAgra, McDonald’s, Kellogg, Mars, and many others.”
Funny how companies selling sugary sweet foods fund research that comes to the conclusion that sugar isn’t bad for you.
Taff, so much nonsense I don’t know where to start!
First, people in western countries right now are on average following low carb diet. Less than 50% of calories from carbs! Over the course of the last 100 years or so, the consumption of meat and dairy and eggs as increased, and thus carbohydrates as % of calories has been reduced while obesity has been going up. During the whole time, high protein and high fat diet have always been promoted for the ignorant public. The ignorant public has chosen to eat more fat and protein, and it has got overweight. It’s as simple as this: the great Mr. Ancel Keys can’t save you from the consequences of your actions (and the ignorance/stupidity behind it).
Second, it seems all you’ve to say against that article is that ACJN can’t be trusted? This is your whole argument? What exactly can’t be trusted, what exactly is false? I think it’s clear that you’ve not read the article at all, not even in passing. Shame on you. Third, I’m not using reputation/authority of ACJN and/or the author to back my argument, so I don’t care at all about any of this. The only thing I care is the content of the article. I want to hear good and detailed objections to it, if you have any. I think the flying cows analogy is great. You are arguing the nutritional equivalent of flying cows, and your argument are based on nothing but playing (and feeling) the victim. You’re not a victim of Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, The Sugar Association. You’re victim of your own dietary choices, like I said before. You should take responsibility for your actions and your belly.
Let me add some additional points.
First point, It’s not clear what you mean by sugar. Do you mean (digestible) carbohydrates? Do you mean table sugar (sucrose)? Do you mean “simple sugars”? To be honest I don’t think that you mean anything actually, you’re only parroting slogans that you don’t understand. I can’t answer because you’ve said nothing.
Second point, You’ve forgot to explain us why big industry would prefer one macronutrient to the others. Why does big industry makes more money with carbs instead of fat or protein? Please enlighten us on this. In fact if you eat less grain and more beef, the consumption of grain will go up, because these poor animals would have to be fed with grain! The low carb unealthy foods that you promote are in fact more profitable than “sugar”.
Third, are you perhaps arguing that carbohydrates are the cause of food addiction, but high-fat and high-protein foods don’t cause food addiction? You think humans tend to get addicted to the wrong macronutrient?
For sugar read simple carbohydrate. Let me guess User3532, you’re self taught using the internet & an arbitrary search engine or two? I assume you’re familiar with Dunning-Kruger? You need to at least get some formal teaching in your subject of interest, if only to verify you are at the level you think you are.
BTW It’s not helpful to think of food issues as addictions in exactly the same sense as drug problems. They involve reward mechanisms in the brain but are better regarded as behavioural issues. Sugars give one a quick high; isn’t that common knowledge?
I’m not an expert, just making some observations based on first & close second hand experiences.
Michael, how do you know he meas simple carbs? You know that he is in favor of eating grains and beans because they’re complex carbs and against fruits because they’re simple carbs? To be honest, I think that this distinction is mostly obsolete. There are many complex carbs that are broken down into glucose very quickly and many simple carb that are not. Moreover, the speed of digestion depends more on the food than on the carbohydrate type. In summary, if he wants to say something reasonable, he has to refer glycemic index.
I’m self taught in the sense that I’ve researched as much as I needed to know who I can reasonably trust and who I can’t reasonably trust. Do you think that unless we’re formally certified, we should not bother with the distinction between truth and falsehood? We should follow the first crank that comes in contact with us? We should allow these cranks to ruin the health of our friends and families because they’re formally certified?
I’ve not researched the topic of food addiction in any depth, and I don’t trust “common knowledge” at all, but anyway, it’s also “common knowledge” that heroin “high” is very quick and intense. Something similar could be said for tobacco and alcohol, no? They don’t last long. That’s precisely why people tend to overconsume.
EDIT: We know for sure that sweeteners, vegetable oils and salt have some significant effect on our brain. We can verify this personally by adding more or less of these substances to our meals. The point is, the “sweetener industry” is no worse than “olive oil industry” or “salt industry”. They’re all drug-like substances.