New keto recipe... and it's yummy :)


#1

Kennufs’ Keto v9.3

It’s been a long time coming, but I finally have a keto recipe I’m proud of with v9.3. I find this recipe delicious, if you decide to give it a try let me know how you like it. :slight_smile:

There are a variety of flavors that work well with this recipe. I am using Nutrabio flavored proteins (Chocolate-Mint originally, still a favorite), but expect any clean, flavored whey you like will work well. I have found any of NutraBio’s whey flavors (Yep, I’ve tried them all) can be used in the recipe without issue, and mixing some of the flavors brings excellence… Cappuccino and Chocolate are awesome together. Be careful with the Java flavor though, unlike the other flavors which don’t have additives Java is fortified with vitamins and may cause an overage.

15g of net carbs per day. Check out the recipe notes for more details.


#2

link wasn’t working for me, but I assume it was this one http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/kennufs-keto-v93


#3

Yup. Link should be working again now.


#4

Skipping the manganese gluconate in it will make the RDI of it fall below 100?


#5

218% is within the safe range. Manganese is important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_deficiency_(medicine) , not everything has to be 100% exactly, in fact… some of the minerals and vitamins are good to have above slightly to take different levels of absorption or decay/denaturation into consideration

From what I can tell, the manganese in his recipe can be about 5 times higher before it hits the recommended max.


#6

Everything has to be 100%. RDI values have been created for a reason and also by taking all those into consideration. Otherwise they could have only mentioned the LL and UL of nutrients and left it at that. Manganese is important yes but at recommended doses, because even at above 2-3 studies have shown ill effects.

And food or food replacements are not the only source of manganese for people. They will get it from water,air,coffee,tea too in varying amounts. So people ingest more manganese than found in food/food replacements. Since manganese in water or air cannot be avoided, its best to keep manganese in food people consume to the minimum.

There is no benefit for manganese above RDI. So he should shouldnt have added the extra manganese.


#7

I think you are misunderstanding this somehow. You won’t drop dead if you get 101% or wither away if you get 99%. I am sure you know this. It really does depend on which exact mineral/vitamin we are talking about. It is all about staying within a certain range, going above or below the range will have either positive or negative effects short term or long term… again depending on which vitamin or mineral it is. Going above the maximum can lead to toxicity levels, going below the minimum can lead to deficiency.

Like Manganese we were just talking about, 2.3 mg is = 100%, go below this and at some point there is a chance you will get a deficiency at some point (you may never get a deficiency if you only go a little lower), but the max is about 11 mg, that means you can basically consume 11 mg manganese without getting toxic levels (normally)… manganese specificly has been talked about quite a bit on our forums as one that has poorly researched RDI/RDA/minimum/maximum whatever you wanna call it… you might have read some of them, otherwise I recommend you searching for them :slight_smile:

Don’t forget that nutrition science is incomplete


#8

Ofcourse not. The reason i said it has to be 100% is because of things i said in the rest of the comment. Esp manganese. Minerals like iron or magnesium or potassium can go slightly higher too, but minerals like manganese or sodium are generally not recommended to be above 100%. Not all minerals are created equal. Also the UL is generally for observed effects. But there are many effects which are not observed. Thats why we cant rest easy thinking that as long as something is below the UL it is allright.

Manganese has poorly researched RDI/RDA true thats why it has UL as 11. If the RDA/RDI of it was better researched the UL could probably have been set a lot lower because manganese ill effects have been observed at doses far less than the UL.


#9

Is there a study you have read about Manganese that the rest of us on the forum have missed?


#10

I am engrossed in something else, shall i get back to you tomorrow?


#11

I don’t want anything to be at 100%. I specifically built this recipe to be over 100% on everything for me, I don’t want the minimums. I am perfectly comfortable that the levels for all nutrients in this recipe are safe, if I do see evidence to suggest otherwise I’ll certainly update my recipe, but as @Tordenskjold mentioned manganese has been talked about a lot around here, and I’m happy with it as-is, I also don’t want this thread to become only about manganese as some others seemed to go, so please fork a new thread if you want to continue a discussion specific to manganese alone.

If I were to remove it as you suggest I would only be at 75%, and as already mentioned I am very far from the upper limit, if that limit changes I will look again, but would be shocked if any change brought me into, or even close to the danger zone.

All that said, anyone who wants to use the recipe can adjust anything, by any amount that makes them happy, so lower away if that’s what you prefer.


#12

Phytic acid reducing manganese by 2.3 fold is from one study with a very small sample size. Also this is dietary phytic acid, what about manganese from air, water, tea,coffee which dont have phytic acid in them?

Also i read how the UL of manganese came into being. But that article doesnt prove anything against my point. Infact the UL should be even lower in my opinion based on ‘observed effects’ and that article.

I am not saying we should not consume manganese at all. We should consume it definitely ( it should not fall below the lower limit either). But care should be taken to stick to the RDI as best as possible.


#13

I merely asked you a question my friend. I didnt suggest you to remove it did i?


#14

Your question suggested removing it, sorry if I misunderstood. It was an easy leap to make though, you are known as the Anti-Manganese Crusader around here (though I think your super hero name needs some work).

FYI, I’m well aware of the story behind how the manganese limits were determined. I however see no reason for concern for the amount in this recipe, even if the UL is wrong, I am far, far away from that limit.


#15

My profile name is derived from my real name :smile: