Intermittent Ketosis?

wabmester

As you may know, there have been a few studies on the long-term effects of low-carb diets that show increased all-cause mortality and cancer mortality.

A study last year suggested that the increased cancer mortality may be due to an increase in IGF-1 -- a normal growth factor that may also promote the growth of cancer cells -- that comes with an increase in protein consumption.

That same researcher also studies fasting, and he found that fasting for 2-5 days lowered IGF-1 in mice and was cancer protective. He's now doing the same studies in humans, but most humans would prefer to take their risks with cancer rather than fasting 3 days in a row each month.

IGF-1 levels apparently also drop during ketogenic diets. So has anybody studied the effects of intermittent ketosis?

I like my moderately low-carb diet, but I'd definitely being willing to try LCHF for a few days a month.

Mistizoom

No, I have never heard of this. In fact, I have heard the opposite (ketogenic diets are cancer preventative). Can you cite the original peer-reviewed study? I would be happy to dissect it. I have access to many scientific journals through my employer.

wabmester

The studies didn't look at ketogenic diets, just "low carb" and "high protein." The low-carb diets were rated on a scale, and the protein content was based on a survey at the start of the long-term study.

So the studies are easy to dismiss if you want to, but my point was that ketogenic diets have *some* of the same benefits as fasting, yet I never hear anybody talk about "intermittent ketosis."

Edit: here's a discussion of the high-protein study:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140308-high-protein-diet-low-protein-cancer-meat-health-food-science/

The most interesting aspect of it is that he looked at different age groups. While high-protein might lead to cancer in middle-agers, it apparently is beneficial to old folk!

wabmester

I had to look up the long-term mortality studies at home. Here you go:

Japan:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23372809

Greece:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17136037

Sweden:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22333874

Edit: another Swedish study:
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026

Mistizoom

wabmester wrote: »

The studies didn't look at ketogenic diets, just "low carb" and "high protein." The low-carb diets were rated on a scale, and the protein content was based on a survey at the start of the long-term study.

So the studies are easy to dismiss if you want to, but my point was that ketogenic diets have *some* of the same benefits as fasting, yet I never hear anybody talk about "intermittent ketosis."

Edit: here's a discussion of the high-protein study:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140308-high-protein-diet-low-protein-cancer-meat-health-food-science/

The most interesting aspect of it is that he looked at different age groups. While high-protein might lead to cancer in middle-agers, it apparently is beneficial to old folk!

The study from this article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311400062X) tells us nothing about low carbohydrate diets. The average person in the human study (an epidemiological study) was eating 51% of calories from carbohydrates. It was not looking at low carbohydrate consumption at all. Plus, as always, correlation does not equal causation. That point cannot be emphasized enough. Kind of like how firemen are often found when there is a house fire. So don't invite firemen to your house if you want to avoid a fire!

Also, it sounds like you are interested in a cyclical ketogenic diet (what you are calling intermittent ketosis)? There are plenty of people out there who do that already. Here's a good summary. http://www.ruled.me/3-ketogogenic-diets-skd-ckd-tkd/

I'll have to take a better look at the other ones later, but the first one looks like a meta-analysis, so I won't have time to look at all the original studies on that one.

wabmester

Yeah, that high-protein study was about protein, not carbs. They found a cancer association with diets that had 20% of calories from protein, which I assume is similar to (or lower than) the amount most low-carbers consume.

They also propose a mechanism of action, and demonstrate it in animal models, so it's not really a pure correlation study.

I'll take a look at the CKD, but last I looked, it was mostly for body builders.

zoom2

wabmester wrote: »

I'll take a look at the CKD, but last I looked, it was mostly for body builders.

I think it can be adapted for just about anyone, really. I recall reading somewhere that CKD was originally a strategy used by distance runners, but became more of "a thing" recently with the weights crowd. I wish I'd bookmarked it. I'm actually planning to do a CKD of sorts this Summer when I start ramping up training for duathlons. Keto on my easier and rest days and 1-2 days/week of higher carbs and calories to fuel my longer/higher intensity workouts.

Mistizoom

wabmester wrote: »

Yeah, that high-protein study was about protein, not carbs. They found a cancer association with diets that had 20% of calories from protein, which I assume is similar to (or lower than) the amount most low-carbers consume.

They also propose a mechanism of action, and demonstrate it in animal models, so it's not really a pure correlation study.

I'll take a look at the CKD, but last I looked, it was mostly for body builders.

In the animal portions of the study they say the protein levels but I don't see what it says about carb levels. Standard mouse chow is full of crappy carbohydrates. So any results they get cannot be completely isolated from the fact that the mice were eating tons of carbohydrates while the protein levels were varied. Researchers like to think that if they only vary one thing, then any changes must be due to "that thing" (i.e., protein levels). But they ignore any possible synergistic effect from the other macronutrients that are in the diet. Because there has to be either fat or carbs or both, the protein in the diet not exist in isolation.

OTOH, if these studies get you to try a ketogenic diet, I'm all for them.

wabmester

I'd be more interested in just eating enough carbs to be ketogenic for a few days, and then go back to my normal lowish-carb intake.

I figure if my normal intake is 75-100g/d, I should be able to adapt back and forth pretty quickly between ketones and glycogen.

In theory, those few days of running on ketones might dissuade a cancer cell or two from listening to IGF-1 growth signals, but who knows.

FIT_Goat

I'm going to be honest and blunt, you're welcome to ignore me as a biased party.

I could not imagine anything more miserable than that plan. You get none of the benefits of very-low-carb, but all the suffering of the early stages of adaptation. It's like getting a tattoo without using ink on the needles.

Pick a plan and stick with it. If 75-100g is something you feel good with (and you're meeting your personal goals) then don't mess with it. If you want to try very-low-carb (keto), then give it an honest shot of at least 30 days without interruption. That way you get over the misery and actually see what it's all about. Not everyone wants or needs to go down to keto levels of carbs. There's nothing wrong with being successful at 75-100g. There's no badges given out for "most-hardcore" around here.

wabmester

That's one thing I'm curious about -- would there be adaptation pain? I should be exhausting my glycogen stores even at this level.

FIT_Goat

It would be less than someone going from the standard amount of carbs to keto, but you'll still have some adaptation pain. There's really a world of difference in need for ketones when you go low enough. I was "pretty low" carb before keto (<100g) without noticing anything unpleasant at those levels. Going down all the way was still a shock.

wabmester

I'm a bit surprised I'm not finding more on this approach. Nice blog post here suggesting intermittent ketosis is closer to our natural state:
http://caloriesproper.com/ketosis-in-an-evolutionary-context/

In my case, I am happy with my hypocaloric lowish-carb diet for losing weight, but I'm ramping up for maintenance, so I may do some additional experimenting. I'll report the results if/when I do.

As an aside, I think I read one book where is was suggested to do a few ultra-low-carb days as a way of getting back onto a low-carb diet (for any definition of "low") if you fall off the LC wagon. So this approach could be almost mainstream.

wabmester

Yeah, I've read at least one study that compared a ketogenic diet to fasting for rheumatoid arthritis relief. The diet reduced IGF-1 and other markers in a way that was similar to fasting, but it didn't provide the same inflammation relief as fasting. The nutrients have some effect.