The deal on sugar
Replies
-
I'll take things said if you substitute the word sugar for the proper word calories for $500 Alex.Too much sugar increases fat which is stored in the liver, then when unused, gets sent out to the organs!
Decrease as much sugar as possible and get it through fruits and vegetables. I have been very successful in weight loss by sharply decreasing sugars from breads, including pancakes, waffles, toast, muffins, crackers--you know, all the good stuff!0 -
Too much sugar increases fat which is stored in the liver, then when unused, gets sent out to the organs!
Decrease as much sugar as possible and get it through fruits and vegetables. I have been very successful in weight loss by sharply decreasing sugars from breads, including pancakes, waffles, toast, muffins, crackers--you know, all the good stuff!
Well, you can solve that problem by using it. Just don't eat surplus calories. Surplus calories -- no matter the source -- are going to be stored by your body.0 -
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!Too much sugar increases fat which is stored in the liver, then when unused, gets sent out to the organs!
Decrease as much sugar as possible and get it through fruits and vegetables. I have been very successful in weight loss by sharply decreasing sugars from breads, including pancakes, waffles, toast, muffins, crackers--you know, all the good stuff!
And I've been very successful in weight loss by sharply decreasing nothing other than my total calorie consumption, which enables me to still be able to enjoy breads, pancakes, waffles, toast, muffins, crackers -- you know, all the good stuff!
0 -
I've been very successful reducing overall calories but actually upping the percentage of sugars I get in relation to my calorie intake....
<
#proofisinthepudding0 -
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".
I didn't intend to participate anymore but I have to ask you
Did someone say that ketosis was healthier than some other thing? I didn't. Who said it was healthier and what did they say exactly?
Who is trying to convince anyone that ketosis is superior? What statement was made that claims superiority over any other thing?
Your entire response is in defense to a fictional argument where you think someone has said that ketosis is healthier and superior to the "preferred" way. I don't see the opposing side of the debate you are carrying out here. If there is someone saying those things, I have missed it.
Well that would be why you don't call using ketones optimal, claim they're a less lazy fuel, imply the brain doesn't have good, healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel, or that the properties of ketosis lead it to supposedly cure Alzheimer's, epilepsy, and so on.
1. I explained why I used the word optimal. It wasn't meant to mean better than glucose, but since you're right, it does actually mean better, it should also not be used to describe glucose usage. Being the first energy used doesn't mean, optimal either.
2. The description of glucose being a lazy fuel was illustrative of exactly the same thing you all have said about glucose being the easiest to burn. I continued that explanation by saying the body will take the path of least resistance and that it's a quick, easy fuel source that requires less effort. I wasn't calling glucose lazy, I was calling the body lazy... But just to illustrate the idea. The same idea that was mentioned about the body conserving energy by someone else. It was in no way the negative remark against glucose, that it was perceived.
3. I don't believe I implied the brain doesn't have good healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel. I definitely acknowledged that it is required, in fact.
4. I also never claimed that ketosis leads to a "cure" for any disease. I did link to medical journals that show the proven benefits that it does provide in treating and preventing neurological disease.
Aside from improperly using the word optimal, I didn't say or imply any of those other things.
I have spent more time correcting a couple of misused words and no one is questioning that original incorrect statement...
"By effectively, you mean didn't die?"
Ketones are a perfectly healthy and natural energy source that won't leave you on the brink of brain death. They aren't picked first, that's true. It's ok, I doubt it hurts their feelings.
(Just to be clear, I don't actually believe they have feelings. Just trying to lighten things up a bit)0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".
I didn't intend to participate anymore but I have to ask you
Did someone say that ketosis was healthier than some other thing? I didn't. Who said it was healthier and what did they say exactly?
Who is trying to convince anyone that ketosis is superior? What statement was made that claims superiority over any other thing?
Your entire response is in defense to a fictional argument where you think someone has said that ketosis is healthier and superior to the "preferred" way. I don't see the opposing side of the debate you are carrying out here. If there is someone saying those things, I have missed it.
Well that would be why you don't call using ketones optimal, claim they're a less lazy fuel, imply the brain doesn't have good, healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel, or that the properties of ketosis lead it to supposedly cure Alzheimer's, epilepsy, and so on.
I did some digging on the Alzheimer's research. Apparently one of the side effects of Alzheimer's is impaired glucose metabolism by the brain. The only reasons ketones are suggested is because they're an alternate source of fuel since the disease has affected the brain's ability to process the primary source of fuel... that's if I'm reading this correctly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25832906
That's certainly a different spin than what I've been reading around these parts.0 -
You mean, you mean, ketones won't cure Alzheimer's?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/136/Ive-got-nothing-to-lose_web.pdf0 -
You mean, you mean, ketones won't cure Alzheimer's?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/136/Ive-got-nothing-to-lose_web.pdf
Did someone say they would?0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You mean, you mean, ketones won't cure Alzheimer's?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/136/Ive-got-nothing-to-lose_web.pdf
Did someone say they would?
Just about. It's coy to pretend otherwise. They certainly are not a miracle intervention.0 -
The part about nutritional ketosis being the superior diet, with some arguing that it is the way that we are meant to eat*, that I don't understand is that it is often recommended to pay extra attention to sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium intake, otherwise generally feeling awful ensues. While this is fine as a choice to make, since we are thinking beings capable to paying attention to these details, I fail to see how needing to pay this much attention to detail would have made us evolutionarily (yes, I made that up) successful, if that makes sense.
Also, as far as my understanding goes, ketosis is more or less a stress response to the absence of carbs in the diet; we also could have been less successful without a backup mechanism, so being able to function in ketosis makes sense to me from that angle.
I guess I just don't understand how this could be the One True Way™. I can totally understand why people choose to do it, although I would not.
*I'm not saying anyone in this particular thread is making this argument, but I've seen it a number of times both on this site and elsewhere.0 -
The part about nutritional ketosis being the superior diet, with some arguing that it is the way that we are meant to eat*, that I don't understand is that it is often recommended to pay extra attention to sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium intake, otherwise generally feeling awful ensues. While this is fine as a choice to make, since we are thinking beings capable to paying attention to these details, I fail to see how needing to pay this much attention to detail would have made us evolutionarily (yes, I made that up) successful, if that makes sense.
Also, as far as my understanding goes, ketosis is more or less a stress response to the absence of carbs in the diet; we also could have been less successful without a backup mechanism, so being able to function in ketosis makes sense to me from that angle.
I guess I just don't understand how this could be the One True Way™. I can totally understand why people choose to do it, although I would not.
*I'm not saying anyone in this particular thread is making this argument, but I've seen it a number of times both on this site and elsewhere.
That's an interesting point.
As I understand it, the loss of electrolytes occurs along with all the water lost as the stored glycogen is used up. I don't have any particular understanding of the evolutionary diet idea, but if the argument is that ketosis was the main energy then I would think there wouldn't be the sudden loss of water from using up all the stored glycogen because there wouldn't be much if any.
What you're saying does make sense that a person would need to be aware of the need to correct it. I wonder if feelings like cravings could've been how those types of needs were met? Like you're thirsty when you need water.
I guess that could've been possible.
(Just a thought. No hidden messages inserted)
Ketosis is the state of burning fat as the primary fuel source. It's not so much a stress response as just another option. And that does make a lot of sense when considering the possibility of evolutionary eating.
I don't believe it's the one true way either. I don't know any fellow Keto-ers personally that do, but I don't doubt that some people talk that way. The extreme opinions are out there for any possible available topic.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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!
Another nursing major here. I apologize in advance if anything I put down is completely wrong (I'm writing a lot of this without referencing any literature).
How does decreasing sugar intake correlate with messed up BG homeostasis? If someone cuts out sugar but still eats above the carb threshold for nutritional ketosis (assuming the person is completely healthy), additional insulin release would still be stimulated as the broken down carbs enter the duodenum or BG levels reach above the hypothalamus's set point (the pancreas always produces insulin). Insulin promotes the uptake of glucose into adipose and muscle cells (there's some body cells that don't require insulin for glucose to enter -I learned that a few days ago and found it really cool), and BG levels drop to the set range. Glucagon is constantly released by the pancreas (assuming this from my own experiences as a type 1 diabetic -my basal insulin is meant to offset the typical amount of glucose that is released into my blood on an hourly basis, and glucagon stimulates glycogen breakdown and a bunch of other fun stuff) and is released in increased amounts when BG levels fall below the set point. The mechanisms for BG homeostasis are the exact same regardless of if the person is consuming no sugar.
The body can run perfectly fine on ketones. I did so for close to three months as an undiagnosed type 1 diabetic (then again, I went into DKA due to the buildup of ketones, but that is because of certain pathological mechanisms that occur in T1DM). Many people on these boards eat low-carb to induce nutritional ketosis, and they're brain activity sure hasn't decrease.
Muscle atrophy occurs with weight loss in general (I don't know exactly but I think it has to do with mechanisms behind catabolism). People can minimize it by including weight training.
Long story short (because I really should get back to studying pathology), sugar is not the devil.
Edit: I'm scared to touch the DKA discussion (I'm only three pages into this thread). Sorry if I provoke another big discussion by mentioning that I was in DKA.
0 -
I think, and I'm spitballing, if a greater increase of BG concentration is combined with significantly greater output of insulin(how far above the set point?!? is a significant) then you may be looking at duodenal ulcers. So, a potential abnormal secretion of a small bowel hormone or several of them may be the culprit. I think for many posters on this thread following HFLC are having issues with too few calories and a lack of physical movement. The lack of strength training among the more obvious issues when you eat low calories and insufficient intake of micro and macro nutrients contribute to bringing light to their plight(apologies for the rhyme). Again, I'm just spitballing.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!
Another nursing major here. I apologize in advance if anything I put down is completely wrong (I'm writing a lot of this without referencing any literature).
How does decreasing sugar intake correlate with messed up BG homeostasis? If someone cuts out sugar but still eats above the carb threshold for nutritional ketosis (assuming the person is completely healthy), additional insulin release would still be stimulated as the broken down carbs enter the duodenum or BG levels reach above the hypothalamus's set point (the pancreas always produces insulin). Insulin promotes the uptake of glucose into adipose and muscle cells (there's some body cells that don't require insulin for glucose to enter -I learned that a few days ago and found it really cool), and BG levels drop to the set range. Glucagon is constantly released by the pancreas (assuming this from my own experiences as a type 1 diabetic -my basal insulin is meant to offset the typical amount of glucose that is released into my blood on an hourly basis, and glucagon stimulates glycogen breakdown and a bunch of other fun stuff) and is released in increased amounts when BG levels fall below the set point. The mechanisms for BG homeostasis are the exact same regardless of if the person is consuming no sugar.
The body can run perfectly fine on ketones. I did so for close to three months as an undiagnosed type 1 diabetic (then again, I went into DKA due to the buildup of ketones, but that is because of certain pathological mechanisms that occur in T1DM). Many people on these boards eat low-carb to induce nutritional ketosis, and they're brain activity sure hasn't decrease.
Muscle atrophy occurs with weight loss in general (I don't know exactly but I think it has to do with mechanisms behind catabolism). People can minimize it by including weight training.
Long story short (because I really should get back to studying pathology), sugar is not the devil.
Edit: I'm scared to touch the DKA discussion (I'm only three pages into this thread). Sorry if I provoke another big discussion by mentioning that I was in DKA.
0 -
brittanynicholexx wrote: »Looking into ketones as a treatment for Alzheimer's might be interesting for you, as a nursing student.
are these actually good for alzheimer's? came to comment on original post but saw this and got sidetracked. My grandpop has alzheimer's and dementia and we're always looking for something that might help him hang around with us a little longer.
Try the book Alzheimer's Disease: What if There Was a Cure? By Mary Newport MD. Ketones or MCTs are used in clinical trials, which consistent success to treat Alzheimer's. I read it after going LCHF and being startled by the obvious improvement in my cognitive abilities.0 -
brittanynicholexx wrote: »Looking into ketones as a treatment for Alzheimer's might be interesting for you, as a nursing student.
are these actually good for alzheimer's? came to comment on original post but saw this and got sidetracked. My grandpop has alzheimer's and dementia and we're always looking for something that might help him hang around with us a little longer.
Try the book Alzheimer's Disease: What if There Was a Cure? By Mary Newport MD. Ketones or MCTs are used in clinical trials, which consistent success to treat Alzheimer's. I read it after going LCHF and being startled by the obvious improvement in my cognitive abilities.
I stayed out of this thread until now, but I can't keep quiet on this one. That book is anecdotal, non evidenced based and completely subjective. The author is a neonatologist who gave her husband coconut oil and claimed she saw improvement. I see improvement from time to time in Alzheimer's patients as well - who sundown the night before and look fabulous the next morning. There are no scientific based studies that back any of these claims up and it's false hope to claim someone can improve when there is absolutely no evidence to show any decrease in brain atrophy. Alzheimer's is a terrifying disease and it scares me that people give out advice like this without having evidence behind it because it's just not true and giving false hope with words like "cure" is ridiculous and cruel. What helps is cognitive training, proven medications, and interaction with family and friends.0 -
All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..0
-
christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications
Because the medications they have found through research that actually inhibit the disease haven't been worth the money?
I think the experts in research design and neurodegenerative diseases should be making the call about what they research.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications
Because the medications they have found through research that actually inhibit the disease haven't been worth the money?
I think the experts in research design and neurodegenerative diseases should be making the call about what they research.
What I mean is, they need to focus on other things besides drugs, drugs, drugs. It's wonderful That they have made headway into this horrific disease, but I don't see why they can't expand their horizons a little. This goes for all diseases, not just Alzheimer's.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications
Because the medications they have found through research that actually inhibit the disease haven't been worth the money?
I think the experts in research design and neurodegenerative diseases should be making the call about what they research.
What I mean is, they need to focus on other things besides drugs, drugs, drugs. It's wonderful That they have made headway into this horrific disease, but I don't see why they can't expand their horizons a little. This goes for all diseases, not just Alzheimer's.
They're studying plenty of non pharmacological factors and treatments for AD. Just because the ketogenic diet hasn't made that list does not mean pharmacological intervention is all they are studying. In fact, with as knowledgeable as the scientists studying this are, it's likely they'd be investing more time in it if it were likely to show results.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26402120/?i=11&from=alzheimers alternative
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26525612/?i=37&from=alzheimers treatment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26391039/i=10&from=alzheimers non pharmacologic0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications
Because the medications they have found through research that actually inhibit the disease haven't been worth the money?
I think the experts in research design and neurodegenerative diseases should be making the call about what they research.
What I mean is, they need to focus on other things besides drugs, drugs, drugs. It's wonderful That they have made headway into this horrific disease, but I don't see why they can't expand their horizons a little. This goes for all diseases, not just Alzheimer's.
They're studying plenty of non pharmacological factors and treatments for AD. Just because the ketogenic diet hasn't made that list does not mean pharmacological intervention is all they are studying. In fact, with as knowledgeable as the scientists studying this are, it's likely they'd be investing more time in it if it were likely to show results.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26402120/?i=11&from=alzheimers alternative
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26525612/?i=37&from=alzheimers treatment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26391039/i=10&from=alzheimers non pharmacologic
That's excellent news! Thanks for the links :flowerforyou: Will take a look now.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications
Because the medications they have found through research that actually inhibit the disease haven't been worth the money?
I think the experts in research design and neurodegenerative diseases should be making the call about what they research.
What I mean is, they need to focus on other things besides drugs, drugs, drugs. It's wonderful That they have made headway into this horrific disease, but I don't see why they can't expand their horizons a little. This goes for all diseases, not just Alzheimer's.
They're studying plenty of non pharmacological factors and treatments for AD. Just because the ketogenic diet hasn't made that list does not mean pharmacological intervention is all they are studying. In fact, with as knowledgeable as the scientists studying this are, it's likely they'd be investing more time in it if it were likely to show results.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26402120/?i=11&from=alzheimers alternative
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26525612/?i=37&from=alzheimers treatment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26391039/i=10&from=alzheimers non pharmacologic
That's excellent news! Thanks for the links :flowerforyou: Will take a look now.
Here's a few on ketones too. They're not ignoring it. It's advantages just haven't been shown yet to be clinically significant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25832906/?i=1&from=alzheimers ketogenic diet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23415649/?i=3&from=/25101284/related
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24069439/?i=4&from=/25101284/related
I just did a fast search for this so I'm sure you could find a lot more.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".
I didn't intend to participate anymore but I have to ask you
Did someone say that ketosis was healthier than some other thing? I didn't. Who said it was healthier and what did they say exactly?
Who is trying to convince anyone that ketosis is superior? What statement was made that claims superiority over any other thing?
Your entire response is in defense to a fictional argument where you think someone has said that ketosis is healthier and superior to the "preferred" way. I don't see the opposing side of the debate you are carrying out here. If there is someone saying those things, I have missed it.
Well that would be why you don't call using ketones optimal, claim they're a less lazy fuel, imply the brain doesn't have good, healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel, or that the properties of ketosis lead it to supposedly cure Alzheimer's, epilepsy, and so on.
1. I explained why I used the word optimal. It wasn't meant to mean better than glucose, but since you're right, it does actually mean better, it should also not be used to describe glucose usage. Being the first energy used doesn't mean, optimal either.
2. The description of glucose being a lazy fuel was illustrative of exactly the same thing you all have said about glucose being the easiest to burn. I continued that explanation by saying the body will take the path of least resistance and that it's a quick, easy fuel source that requires less effort. I wasn't calling glucose lazy, I was calling the body lazy... But just to illustrate the idea. The same idea that was mentioned about the body conserving energy by someone else. It was in no way the negative remark against glucose, that it was perceived.
3. I don't believe I implied the brain doesn't have good healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel. I definitely acknowledged that it is required, in fact.
4. I also never claimed that ketosis leads to a "cure" for any disease. I did link to medical journals that show the proven benefits that it does provide in treating and preventing neurological disease.
Aside from improperly using the word optimal, I didn't say or imply any of those other things.
I have spent more time correcting a couple of misused words and no one is questioning that original incorrect statement...
"By effectively, you mean didn't die?"
Ketones are a perfectly healthy and natural energy source that won't leave you on the brink of brain death. They aren't picked first, that's true. It's ok, I doubt it hurts their feelings.
(Just to be clear, I don't actually believe they have feelings. Just trying to lighten things up a bit)
You are reasonable, diplomatic and explain ketosis concepts well. I bet there are lurkers here who have identified some of the typical issues people have when they have a 'carb problem' and will use your rational explaining as a springboard to do their own research. Thank you.0 -
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 do you realize your post is medically speaking not factual? Google Nutritional Ketosis and learn more about that way of eating. Medically speaking there is no requirement for humans to eat carbs to be totally healthy.
Over a year ago I cut out all forms of grains and most all sugars to see if I could lower my risk of cancer, etc associated with the Rx drug Enbrel. Thankfully cutting out all grains and most all sugars (eating <50 grams of carbs daily to stay in nutritional ketosis) in only 30 days cut my pain levels from a subjective 7-8 to 2-3 and a year later my way of eating is still managing my pain well and permitted me to dodge the Enbrel and its side effects.
My 40 years of life defining IBS was cured after six months of this Way Of Eating and I lost 30 pounds.
My way of eating is 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fats. I get the glucose I need from by protein but for muscles, brain, etc I burn mainly ketones vs glucose. Nutritional Ketosis by design is muscle sparing.
raemj1721 do not be upset you have not been taught fully factual medical info in nursing school. I earned my OD degree in 1986 from SCO in Memphis TN and was not taught about how carb abuse can lead to Type 2 diabetes which is the leading cause of blindness in the USA. If you are still in school play the game as required to get your degree but start researching the full facts so when you start working you will be working with the full medical facts. Cutting all sugar is not even practical for most people but overeating sugar is bad per the article below.
Carbs are not evil but some of us will die early if we abuse them. After I found out carbs are not medically a required food it helped me to be able to stop living on mainly carbs and start my health recovery at age 63.
health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
Best of success with your nursing degree.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
If it worked, I'd put all my patients on it.
I hope they look into this further and spend their dollars on serious research into keto and Alzheimer's, instead of putting the sole attention on drugs/medications
Because the medications they have found through research that actually inhibit the disease haven't been worth the money?
I think the experts in research design and neurodegenerative diseases should be making the call about what they research.
What I mean is, they need to focus on other things besides drugs, drugs, drugs. It's wonderful That they have made headway into this horrific disease, but I don't see why they can't expand their horizons a little. This goes for all diseases, not just Alzheimer's.
This sounds like ignorance of why drugs often have side effects, which is because they have effects. Anything strong enough to impact the condition is liable to impact related systems. If diet could produce the effect, it'd probably produce side effects too.0 -
brittanynicholexx wrote: »Looking into ketones as a treatment for Alzheimer's might be interesting for you, as a nursing student.
are these actually good for alzheimer's? came to comment on original post but saw this and got sidetracked. My grandpop has alzheimer's and dementia and we're always looking for something that might help him hang around with us a little longer.
Try the book Alzheimer's Disease: What if There Was a Cure? By Mary Newport MD. Ketones or MCTs are used in clinical trials, which consistent success to treat Alzheimer's. I read it after going LCHF and being startled by the obvious improvement in my cognitive abilities.
I stayed out of this thread until now, but I can't keep quiet on this one. That book is anecdotal, non evidenced based and completely subjective. The author is a neonatologist who gave her husband coconut oil and claimed she saw improvement. I see improvement from time to time in Alzheimer's patients as well - who sundown the night before and look fabulous the next morning. There are no scientific based studies that back any of these claims up and it's false hope to claim someone can improve when there is absolutely no evidence to show any decrease in brain atrophy. Alzheimer's is a terrifying disease and it scares me that people give out advice like this without having evidence behind it because it's just not true and giving false hope with words like "cure" is ridiculous and cruel. What helps is cognitive training, proven medications, and interaction with family and friends.
It sounds like the improvements her husband saw were fairly large and consistent. She had wanted him in clinical trials but he was too far gone to qualify. She gathered as many details as possible and mimicked the clinical trials as much as she could.
Yes, the book is anecdotal but there is probably something to it. Alzheimer's is thought by some to be a form of insulin resistance that affects the brain, sort of like PCOS and NAFLD are thought to also be types of IR. If the brain is experiencing IR, it makes sense to give the body a fuel where it can make ketones so the brain gets the energy it needs.
No it may not work for all, but since there is no harm in trying a ketogenic diet, or just adding MCTs or coconut oil to a diet in lieu of some carbs, why not give it a try?0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".
I didn't intend to participate anymore but I have to ask you
Did someone say that ketosis was healthier than some other thing? I didn't. Who said it was healthier and what did they say exactly?
Who is trying to convince anyone that ketosis is superior? What statement was made that claims superiority over any other thing?
Your entire response is in defense to a fictional argument where you think someone has said that ketosis is healthier and superior to the "preferred" way. I don't see the opposing side of the debate you are carrying out here. If there is someone saying those things, I have missed it.
Well that would be why you don't call using ketones optimal, claim they're a less lazy fuel, imply the brain doesn't have good, healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel, or that the properties of ketosis lead it to supposedly cure Alzheimer's, epilepsy, and so on.
1. I explained why I used the word optimal. It wasn't meant to mean better than glucose, but since you're right, it does actually mean better, it should also not be used to describe glucose usage. Being the first energy used doesn't mean, optimal either.
2. The description of glucose being a lazy fuel was illustrative of exactly the same thing you all have said about glucose being the easiest to burn. I continued that explanation by saying the body will take the path of least resistance and that it's a quick, easy fuel source that requires less effort. I wasn't calling glucose lazy, I was calling the body lazy... But just to illustrate the idea. The same idea that was mentioned about the body conserving energy by someone else. It was in no way the negative remark against glucose, that it was perceived.
3. I don't believe I implied the brain doesn't have good healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel. I definitely acknowledged that it is required, in fact.
4. I also never claimed that ketosis leads to a "cure" for any disease. I did link to medical journals that show the proven benefits that it does provide in treating and preventing neurological disease.
Aside from improperly using the word optimal, I didn't say or imply any of those other things.
I have spent more time correcting a couple of misused words and no one is questioning that original incorrect statement...
"By effectively, you mean didn't die?"
Ketones are a perfectly healthy and natural energy source that won't leave you on the brink of brain death. They aren't picked first, that's true. It's ok, I doubt it hurts their feelings.
(Just to be clear, I don't actually believe they have feelings. Just trying to lighten things up a bit)
You are reasonable, diplomatic and explain ketosis concepts well. I bet there are lurkers here who have identified some of the typical issues people have when they have a 'carb problem' and will use your rational explaining as a springboard to do their own research. Thank you.
Thank you, I appreciate that more than you know.
It's good to know that someone has recognized that I'm not on any mission to convert people to Keto, but just to prevent the spread of incorrect information in hopes that anyone that would like to understand the science will continue their research and make choices based on facts.
It's a fascinating metabolic process no matter what personal opinions are.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions