Ye, i like to look at it through, like, through experience and kind of just learning about it, getting to recognize the tools you have available to yue. So you are more or less manipulating the diet around the life style that is going to be most meaningful to you, verses the other way around. And i think that's where people find it more sustainable and less likely to kind of fall off the wagon, so to speak. But, ah, one thing we've been kind of touching on a bit here and there, but i want to pry into a little bit, is just this a this adaptation time line, which i think is one that gets argued about a fair bit, is to ike, you'll see a study where they put someone on acetogenic diet who is otherwise following a moderate, high carb diet, and their coming up with results. And ynow, the easy push back from the the low carb community es, well, they didn't do it long enough. If you would have done it for eight weeks, 12 weeks, how over many weeks they would have seen a much different result. I'm always curious about that. As a time frame. Stampe, which i think you've described pretty decently already, just with, you know, the level of flexibility you have after you've put your body kind of through that cycle for a while. The other thing i always wonder about though, too, is, especially when we're dealing with competitive athletes and we're looking at peak performance ist, any dietary manipulation to the degree of switching from, i'm essentially doing one 80 on your macro nutrient profile, even a couple of weeks before peak performance, seems at odds with what i would recommend to do in any scenario. Like if i'm working with a client in there on a moderate carbohydric and we're two weeks from the race, and they say, you know what? I think i'm going to stop eating the 12 food staples i have in my diet and switch to these 12 new ones, i'm going to say, maybe let's wait till after the race, unless, unless things are going so badly that we're just kind of, you know, wer were we're bucketing water out of the boat at that point. But in most snaros ime, we make that big life style change, dietarily after their goal event, and play around with it then. Is that something you see with the research we do have, or t as as a potential problem on top, or possibly just the length of adaptation that may take.

Yes, completely, i think you're right. I think i i find the key toaptation, i ges to ba, i find quite entertaining, because a kind of, i think both sides there, there are elements of truth to it. And the reason is, because we know so little about keap raltation. I think tereis an element where you can say that no matter how long you give it, it will never be long enough to some people. And i think that's thats a fair criticism. A, i also, i think the point you make is, is is extremely important. An, now, is it in any kind of performance, a leat performance, but even you now, very few people are going to change their diet, and no one would recommend, at least, i think it's safe to say, change your diet. And now in a month's time, this is your big race. Am saying i thinkit. It's another point that comes down to new ons, because yet, you have to understand ing research. Younow, it's very hard to say, rigt e're gongt to a six month intervention on people, and look at you. We gong to make them stop. E, an cast six months ging to monitor everything, it'll be expensive, andi it'll be really difficult. So you can learn huge amounts about metabolism and keytogenic diets over three to four, five, six week intervention studies. But then where i draw the line is saying a key to diet isn't going to work because of, you know, this study here that has a three week intervention and a race at the end, because no one would do in the real world. And it's, it doesn't make sense. And so, whilst you can steal completely, i mean, some of the most useful studies to me, and me learning about this, have been short interventions. When you get em in the early two thousands, tey will to pushe a sorof one, weak low carbohydrate dits, and are realy interesting to read. But you know, there's certainly not a er, a nail in the coffin for low carbohydrate is because we know, and this is where my perspective, key to lotation, is that we, to be completely frank, we just don't know. We don't know anything about how long it takes. And the reason for that is that, think we always, in research in general, we put a lot of value in what we can measure understandably, because, you know, you can only report what you measure. Putting lods of value in our measurable ofveses futile. But that kind of leads to this slightly reductionist approach where we're looking for markers. They 're going to tell us if someone's key to adapted, for example.