The deal on sugar
Options
Replies
-
How does it not make sense? Clearly some parts of it can't be run on purely ketones, and when given the option, it always uses glucose. Why would it make sense to run on less optimal fuel when available when the evolution of the brain is the biggest part of the evolution of genus homo, and the only real thing to differentiate it?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
You are saying the body uses glucose first because its the more optimal fuel, what if the body uses glucose first because high blood glucose is a hazardous state for the body? Don't confuse 'uses first' with 'optimal'.
Well, except it is. To utilize triglycerides and and fatty acids your body has to do more chemical reactions than it does for glucose, which is why glucose is a preferred source - it is fast reactant for ATP production.
Seriously, the implication that your brain uses glucose because it is a toxic material and the body needs to dump it asap? If it was such a problem, why would the body waste energy producing glucose just to have to dump it out to keep from toxify itself? Sometimes evolution does some bass ackwards stuff because it has to work with what is there, but I assure the brain's reliance on at least some glucose isn't some klutch play energy sourcing.
Hey I don't know, but I do know better than claiming something is all-around the best and super-terrific too. Every fuel has strengths and weaknesses. If you don't know the weaknesses, it just means we don't understand, it does not mean the weakness does not exist. First & fast are positives. The negatives matter too.
False balance fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy? Quit.
Fallacy fallacy only says a fallacy doesn't make you wrong simply.because you used a fallacy. It basically says someone could be right by accident. Only, you're not. You're trying claim a fuel has to have a downside - that's false balance. Sometimes, there are objectively better options. Human evolution involving continuous preference of glucose as fuel and some intelligence tests show it to be the superior fuel.
Fallacies actually demonstrate a problem in reasoning, not just words to throw out. Fallacy fallacy isn't a get out of jail free card - you need empirical evidence to show you're accidentally right to show a fallacy fallacy.0 -
Yeah, you can cut suger. You know, the refined sugar in candy, sweets and other baked goods. Congrats on being a nursing major. Guess what, I'm a nurse too. Yes, you need a certain amount of sugar for brain function but guess what? You can't completely cut sugar from your diet. It's in fruits and some veggies. A certain amount of sugar is fine. Anything else in excess is a toxin to your body. So glad you think that because you're a "nursing major" makes you an expert.0
-
I avoid sugary drinks like coke and fruit juice, but do add sugar to my coffee, tea, and breakfast cereal. I think it comes down to GI more than anything else, low GI foods I find keep my energy levels more stable, but I'd miss sugar too much if I cut it out completely.
On the issue of being a brain surgeon, I'm actually not sure how smart you need to be for that job judging by this:
https://www.tytnetwork.com/2015/11/14/ben-carson-thinks-china-is-invading-syria-and-isis-is-easy/
:-)0 -
Interesting comments.0
-
Okay, I've been wondering this for awhile.
Ketostix test for ketones in urine, right?
Ketones in urine is actually an indication of diabetes, so how exactly is this optimal to your body?0 -
Okay, I've been wondering this for awhile.
Ketostix test for ketones in urine, right?
Ketones in urine is actually an indication of diabetes, so how exactly is this optimal to your body?
Ketones in urine is only an indication of acetoacetate in urine. Nothing else.
Type 1 diabetics, like my daughter, use them as a reference for watching ketone levels along with testing blood sugar levels to prevent a condition called Diabetic KetoAcidosis. This condition only exists in an insulin deficiency such as what T1D presents. Even my daughter could eat a Ketogenic diet and be producing moderate to large ketones every day and be perfectly healthy as long as she continues to maintain a basal insulin level.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Okay, I've been wondering this for awhile.
Ketostix test for ketones in urine, right?
Ketones in urine is actually an indication of diabetes, so how exactly is this optimal to your body?
Ketones in urine is only an indication of acetoacetate in urine. Nothing else.
Type 1 diabetics, like my daughter, use them as a reference for watching ketone levels along with testing blood sugar levels to prevent a condition called Diabetic KetoAcidosis. This condition only exists in an insulin deficiency such as what T1D presents. Even my daughter could eat a Ketogenic diet and be producing moderate to large ketones every day and be perfectly healthy as long as she continues to maintain a basal insulin level.
I know what ketoacidosis is, and it is not limited to T1 diabetics, however that is where it is commonly seen. It is also seen is severe cases of alcohol ingestion/dehydration although is much more rare.
Ketones are usually found in urine when a person is ill, i.e. Uncontrolled diabetes, starvation, prolonged vomiting, hyperthyroidism, fever etc. I just fail to see how purposely achieving this is considered optimal.0 -
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.0 -
Citation neededSunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
How does it not make sense? Clearly some parts of it can't be run on purely ketones, and when given the option, it always uses glucose. Why would it make sense to run on less optimal fuel when available when the evolution of the brain is the biggest part of the evolution of genus homo, and the only real thing to differentiate it?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
You are saying the body uses glucose first because its the more optimal fuel, what if the body uses glucose first because high blood glucose is a hazardous state for the body? Don't confuse 'uses first' with 'optimal'.
Exactly!
You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
So, doesn't it make sense for the body to use as much of that as possible before resorting to storage as fat?
What do you think it does with dietary fat?
Fat is used for hormone regulation, but then of course, just like anything else, leftovers get stored. Nobody said different. Did you think I did? I guess you got confused since I pointed out that after immediate energy needs and glycogen refilling, there's no other need for glucose so it's stored as fat, but since it's not going to be glucose anymore after that, the body really is good at making use of it before other sources of energy. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes perfect sense since we didn't have access to a lot of carbohydrates on a regular basis and we physically cannot store as many calories of glycogen on our bodies as we can store as fat.Also, it's a quick burn fuel. It's like the lighter fluid you use to start a fire... You wouldn't skip the wood in preference for the quick burning lighter fluid.
And ketone bodies aren't?
No ketone bodies aren't a quick burning fuel. I think you or the other guy already made some comment about how they take longer to burn... Fat was a slower burning source of energy. You get 9 calories per gram compared to 4 with carbs.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.
Even in a primarily carbohydrate diet, the brain still uses ketones on a daily basis. Do you think I am saying that the brain doesn't require any glucose? I'm not. I'm just saying you don't have to ingest it for your brain to get it.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
Are you able to tell me what it is specifically that vegetables provide that cannot be acquired in animal food sources?
Are you saying you need vegetables because that's what you've always been told or because you are aware of what unique micronutrients they provide?
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
LOL. no.And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
Are ketones necessary for brain function? No.
Are ketones sufficient for brain function? No.
How then, can they be optimal?
They are absolutely sufficient.
ORLY? So you're saying the brain can run exclusively on ketones? (Cuz that's what "sufficient" means donchaknow)
Again, I never said the brain doesn't need glucose. I just said you don't have to eat it to provide it.
If the brain needs glucose, then by definition ketones aren't sufficient for brain function. Capisce?
The brain uses ketones all the time too you know... Neither of them fly solo. Not sure where that's coming from.
Le sigh. One last time.
The brain can run solely on glucose, therefore ketones are not necessary.
The brain cannot run solely on ketones, therefore ketones are not sufficient.
You are clearly not understanding.
The brain simultaneously uses glucose and ketones.
The brain is not ever without a source for more ketones just as it is not ever without a source for glucose. Ever. There is never a day that goes by without your brain using some amount of ketones. Just as there is not a day that goes by without your brain using some amount of glucose.
Are you with me?
How could you possibly know if the brain could run on either ketones or glucose alone when it cannot be completely deprived of either and does not EVER go without each of them in any given day?
I, again, HAVE NEVER CLAIMED, that it could..
Do you understand what the word sufficient means?
Do you understand what the word necessary means?
What exactly is your argument because I have no idea.
Sigh
Me;Are ketones necessary for brain function? No.
Are ketones sufficient for brain function? No.
How then, can they be optimal?
YouThey are absolutely sufficient.
Do I really have to explain what sufficient means?
Ketones are a part of your brain energy every day. So, it's your body that's says they are essential, not me.Optimal... As in for reducing oxidative stress, preventing disease, supporting mitochondrial growth, long lasting source of fuel that your body always carries extra of and I promise won't leave you "bonking" on a hill somewhere while out running because you ran out of fat.
Citation neededSufficient, meaning as a primary fat burner, the presence of ketones not only serves as a readily available source, it's actually used to treat and prevent diseases, that don't respond as favorably in a primarily glucose burning system.
That's not what sufficient means. And the topic was the brain.
As far as the brain is concerned, it certainly can be.You are under the impression that glucose is a one man show.
Given sufficient glucose, the brain needs ZERO ketones. None. Nil. Nada. The brain will use ketones ONLY when there is insufficient glucose available.
What part of this don't you understand?You need to hit the books.
I can't do this with you anymore.
This is the kind of misinformation that keeps circulating and causes rounds and rounds of the same question over and over again that I've answered like 5 times already.
I can't help that you don't understand it.
Find some sources and do some research. I did.
Citation needed.
0 -
Eating low carb was one of the most depressing things I've ever attempted. I am grateful that I have a choice. My sister who is Type 1 diabetic doesn't have much leeway, and even though she was diagnosed in her 20's and is now in her 50's I don't think she's ever made peace with it.
BTW, where is the OP??0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Okay, I've been wondering this for awhile.
Ketostix test for ketones in urine, right?
Ketones in urine is actually an indication of diabetes, so how exactly is this optimal to your body?
Ketones in urine is only an indication of acetoacetate in urine. Nothing else.
Type 1 diabetics, like my daughter, use them as a reference for watching ketone levels along with testing blood sugar levels to prevent a condition called Diabetic KetoAcidosis. This condition only exists in an insulin deficiency such as what T1D presents. Even my daughter could eat a Ketogenic diet and be producing moderate to large ketones every day and be perfectly healthy as long as she continues to maintain a basal insulin level.
I know what ketoacidosis is, and it is not limited to T1 diabetics, however that is where it is commonly seen. It is also seen is severe cases of alcohol ingestion/dehydration although is much more rare.
Ketones are usually found in urine when a person is ill, i.e. Uncontrolled diabetes, starvation, prolonged vomiting, hyperthyroidism, fever etc. I just fail to see how purposely achieving this is considered optimal.
I described Diabetic KetoAcidosis and that is limited to T1D. Or perhaps T2D if the pancreas no longer produces insulin.
Alcoholic KetoAcidosis is very rare as you said and is a result of long periods of excessive alcohol consumption. Binging alcoholics often forgo eating any food at all but certainly don't eat enough food so the body does what it does best. It provides ketones from the stored fat just like it's supposed to. Binging alcoholics often experience some vomiting which speeds the inevitable dehydration. When you drink alcohol your pancreas may stop producing insulin for a short period of time. The explanations below will explain why those facts are important and what actually causes Alcoholic KetoAcidosis.
I will explain why what you are familiar with as a potential medical emergency is entirely different than nutritional ketosis.
In the case of an ill person, i.e. Uncontrolled diabetes: the body is unable to use the glucose that is present in their blood due to lack of insulin so it uses another natural source of energy, ketones. In this situation, the ketones are not what is dangerous until the levels climb to acidotic levels which won't happen if the person can get insulin and bring their blood sugar down. It's the high blood sugar and lack of insulin that creates the immediate need to make ketones and in the continued absence of insulin and presence of climbing blood glucose the body begins to build up too much of the acetone byproduct because there simply isn't enough water available to continue to flush it out to keep up with the rate it is being produced. That's why high blood sugar and ketones makes a person very, very thirsty. Dehydration prevents the body from reducing the acetone byproduct.
Starvation: the state of nutritional ketosis mimics a fasted state like starvation. Fasting can be very beneficial to health. Mimicking it without actually going without food is just awesomeness. The body stores fat for this purpose. There's no reason to think that using the stored fat is a potential health concern. And the acidotic state cannot occur if insulin is available as needed.
Prolonged vomiting: the body will use another natural source... Again, ketones. Same as above. Stored fat is there for this reason. To feed us when there's no food available. If insulin is available, there's no threat of acidosis.
Hyperthyroidism: in Severe hyperthyroidism that continues on for weeks where the person becomes increasingly sick and developing symptoms of vomiting and/or diarrhea for extended periods of time, thereby creating the need for the body to use stored fat to help supply energy with the reduction of food and the inevitable prolonged dehydration from illness could certainly result in an acidotic condition but this is even more rare than Alcoholic KetoAcidosis and develops rather slowly.
Fever: I've never heard of a fever causing KetoAcidosis.
The reason you don't understand why some consider nutritional ketosis to be optimal is because you don't understand the differences between acidotic conditions that are a result of severe illness and the normal, natural state of using stored body fat as a primary energy source.
In every single one of those dangerous conditions, ketones are acting as a life saving force, just as they should. That's not a malfunction. The malfunction comes from the underlying illness that when left untreated, will progress into dehydration that prevents the body from removing the acidic byproduct thereby causing it to build up in the body.
Ketones and their use by the body as an energy source is not unnatural or dangerous in any way.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Soo.. Nursing major here.. In my opinion cutting out sugar is a bad idea for a lot of reasons like decrease in brain activity, messing up insulin and glucose levels, body will start to use up muscle mass for energy which we want muscle cause it burns more energy which is calories. Your fat is the last thing to go when starving yourself or depriving a thing like sugar. Quick fact: your brain uses 50% of sugar you consume!
@raemj1721 when you say "cutting out sugar" are you referring to just added sugar like in baked goods or that which comes in dairy, fruit, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc?
Why would you think she means just added sugar?
I didn't make any assumptions. That was a request for clarification.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Precisely. So -- to umayster -- why do no human cultures have a ketogenic diet?
Humans will eat everything which provides energy and doesn't have a direct short time link with sickness or death.
There are some cultures whose diet is low carb to ketogenic.
Name one culture with a ketogenic diet. (And no, neither the Inuit nor the Masai have ketogenic diets)
Provide source for your claim please
One can only prove a positive. Here's a database listing traditional Inuit foods. I see berries.
https://www.mcgill.ca/cine/files/cine/Traditional_Food_Composition_Nutribase.pdf
The Maasai. I see roots, leafy vegetables, and wild fruit.
https://www.mcgill.ca/cine/resources/data/maasai0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
Citation neededSunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
How does it not make sense? Clearly some parts of it can't be run on purely ketones, and when given the option, it always uses glucose. Why would it make sense to run on less optimal fuel when available when the evolution of the brain is the biggest part of the evolution of genus homo, and the only real thing to differentiate it?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
You are saying the body uses glucose first because its the more optimal fuel, what if the body uses glucose first because high blood glucose is a hazardous state for the body? Don't confuse 'uses first' with 'optimal'.
Exactly!
You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
So, doesn't it make sense for the body to use as much of that as possible before resorting to storage as fat?
What do you think it does with dietary fat?
Fat is used for hormone regulation, but then of course, just like anything else, leftovers get stored. Nobody said different. Did you think I did? I guess you got confused since I pointed out that after immediate energy needs and glycogen refilling, there's no other need for glucose so it's stored as fat, but since it's not going to be glucose anymore after that, the body really is good at making use of it before other sources of energy. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes perfect sense since we didn't have access to a lot of carbohydrates on a regular basis and we physically cannot store as many calories of glycogen on our bodies as we can store as fat.Also, it's a quick burn fuel. It's like the lighter fluid you use to start a fire... You wouldn't skip the wood in preference for the quick burning lighter fluid.
And ketone bodies aren't?
No ketone bodies aren't a quick burning fuel. I think you or the other guy already made some comment about how they take longer to burn... Fat was a slower burning source of energy. You get 9 calories per gram compared to 4 with carbs.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.
Even in a primarily carbohydrate diet, the brain still uses ketones on a daily basis. Do you think I am saying that the brain doesn't require any glucose? I'm not. I'm just saying you don't have to ingest it for your brain to get it.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
Are you able to tell me what it is specifically that vegetables provide that cannot be acquired in animal food sources?
Are you saying you need vegetables because that's what you've always been told or because you are aware of what unique micronutrients they provide?
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
LOL. no.And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
Are ketones necessary for brain function? No.
Are ketones sufficient for brain function? No.
How then, can they be optimal?
They are absolutely sufficient.
ORLY? So you're saying the brain can run exclusively on ketones? (Cuz that's what "sufficient" means donchaknow)
Again, I never said the brain doesn't need glucose. I just said you don't have to eat it to provide it.
If the brain needs glucose, then by definition ketones aren't sufficient for brain function. Capisce?
The brain uses ketones all the time too you know... Neither of them fly solo. Not sure where that's coming from.
Le sigh. One last time.
The brain can run solely on glucose, therefore ketones are not necessary.
The brain cannot run solely on ketones, therefore ketones are not sufficient.
You are clearly not understanding.
The brain simultaneously uses glucose and ketones.
The brain is not ever without a source for more ketones just as it is not ever without a source for glucose. Ever. There is never a day that goes by without your brain using some amount of ketones. Just as there is not a day that goes by without your brain using some amount of glucose.
Are you with me?
How could you possibly know if the brain could run on either ketones or glucose alone when it cannot be completely deprived of either and does not EVER go without each of them in any given day?
I, again, HAVE NEVER CLAIMED, that it could..
Do you understand what the word sufficient means?
Do you understand what the word necessary means?
What exactly is your argument because I have no idea.
Sigh
Me;Are ketones necessary for brain function? No.
Are ketones sufficient for brain function? No.
How then, can they be optimal?
YouThey are absolutely sufficient.
Do I really have to explain what sufficient means?
Ketones are a part of your brain energy every day. So, it's your body that's says they are essential, not me.Optimal... As in for reducing oxidative stress, preventing disease, supporting mitochondrial growth, long lasting source of fuel that your body always carries extra of and I promise won't leave you "bonking" on a hill somewhere while out running because you ran out of fat.
Citation neededSufficient, meaning as a primary fat burner, the presence of ketones not only serves as a readily available source, it's actually used to treat and prevent diseases, that don't respond as favorably in a primarily glucose burning system.
That's not what sufficient means. And the topic was the brain.
As far as the brain is concerned, it certainly can be.You are under the impression that glucose is a one man show.
Given sufficient glucose, the brain needs ZERO ketones. None. Nil. Nada. The brain will use ketones ONLY when there is insufficient glucose available.
What part of this don't you understand?You need to hit the books.
I can't do this with you anymore.
This is the kind of misinformation that keeps circulating and causes rounds and rounds of the same question over and over again that I've answered like 5 times already.
I can't help that you don't understand it.
Find some sources and do some research. I did.
Citation needed.
I don't know what your mission is. You're awfully hung up on the word sufficient. Sorry dude, I won't use your word anymore. Will that make it better?
I said over and over and over and over and over again... That yes, the brain does NEED a certain amount of glucose every day. You are acting as if I have not acknowledged that.
The brain can sufficiently (oops! My bad), I mean adequately use ketones in a carbohydrate restricted diet as its main energy source. (I NEVER EVER said solely) I feel like I'm having deja vu...
So here's a couple of interesting reads. I promise they aren't attacking or demonizing carbs or glucose. I promise they aren't suggestive that I think everyone is wrong with everything they say and what they believe are accurate definitions of simple English words, because that's absolutely ridiculous.
They are medical journals. I didn't write them. They are not my opinions or findings. They are just up to date information that is highly interesting if you happen to find understanding this kind of stuff cool like I do. It helps to be open to an evolving science that we are constantly learning more about every day. If you're not, you may tend to share very strong, limited, opinions on Internet boards and make it appear to be getting constantly challenged by another user that isn't saying what you think they are saying... Over and over and over and...
Well good luck with life.
Here ya go.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617348/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617363/
0 -
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
0 -
I cut out added sugar. Totally unneeded!0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
This is exactly the bit about low carb dieting I don't understand. Surely surplus calories from fat are also stored as fat, and the chemical process to store dietary fat on the body is probably more efficient (i.e. requires less calories to do) than converting sugar to fat. So I suspect a surplus calorie from fat will make you fatter than a surplus calorie from carbohydrate.0 -
Your reading comprehension here is poor. Even in the context of low carb, I wrote, "Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic [sic] or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
No one is required to have a cogent reason. Because diet choices are ultimately "his call."
That is precisely the opposite of telling someone what she should or shouldn't eat.
I think the world would generally be a better place if people had cogent reasons for their choices, but I explicitly wrote that this isn't a requirement. How is that hard for you to understand?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions