I know there's a wide range of experience of different diets, and almost as many reasons used to justify them. I also appreciate that the setting of n=1 experiments is typically as subjective as the perceived outcomes. However I'm curious about the number of people who are convinced that using dietary fat as the primary source of maintenance calories is not functional.
I am personally of the opinion that while significant carbs can be utilised effectively in a properly fat-adjusted and trained body to support high activity, there's no reason to use carbs all the time in preference to fat. I know there's a lot of other complicating factors, psychological and physiological to support different food choices. And yes, I'm aware you can cite studies that isolate particular phenomena and can be built to support whatever position you choose, but I'm more interested in the experiences that drive the formation of that opinion.
So I guess the question is, if you tried switching to a fat-dominant metabolism and found it didn't work for you what specifically was better with high carbs (by high carbs I'm meaning more than that burned by physical activity)? Is it just that, having established a requirement for carbs to be active it's easier to stick with carbs for everything and drop the fat? Did you ever experience some of the commonly quoted advantages of fat metabolism - more consistently high energy, reduction in hunger, mood stability? What was your experience with fasting?
For me theories are always proved by reality, and there's enough reports against the adoption of increased fat metabolism to highlight that it's an area I could do well to learn more about. So I'd appreciate hearing the context, what did you try and do to switch to fat as the default low-activity metabolism and how did it fail?