Is low carb dangerous? possibly.
Replies
-
realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
People have done ketosis for years at a time. As far as I know, there have not been any reported "detrimental" affects that you keep claiming. While I think keto is encouraged too much right now as the "cure-all", it is not some horrible, evil diet that will kill everyone like you seem to be implying.
I didn't claim anything. I asked if restricting carbs to a low amount for a long amount of time causes issues with organs. Other people chimed in and said the body can metabolize protein into glucose, which was helpful to know. Like I said, the whole reason I started even wondering about this is because of the NIH article I posted above and it kind of made me change the way I view nutrition.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
Atkins isn't a keto diet. But lots of keto dieters eat 25 or less daily. Long term.
I know Atkins isn't keto. I just used Atkins as one example of a low carb diet.0 -
realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
It isn't detrimental. For some people it actually is almost a necessity. Some people have severe epilepsy that can't be treated by any medication or have overwhelming side effects that use ketosis as a way to reduce their incidence.
It is particularly true for some children where the medications could have severe consequences for a growing body.
That said, without a medical condition, I'd see no reason to advice anyone to be in constant ketogenic state.0 -
realityfades wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
People have done ketosis for years at a time. As far as I know, there have not been any reported "detrimental" affects that you keep claiming. While I think keto is encouraged too much right now as the "cure-all", it is not some horrible, evil diet that will kill everyone like you seem to be implying.
I didn't claim anything. I asked if restricting carbs to a low amount for a long amount of time causes issues with organs. Other people chimed in and said the body can metabolize protein into glucose, which was helpful to know. Like I said, the whole reason I started even wondering about this is because of the NIH article I posted above and it kind of made me change the way I view nutrition.
But you're using terms all over the boards like "detrimental", "dangerous" "high liability for studying this diet" as if you understand that it is bad. The article you posted does not state that not eating carbs would prevent the body from eating those energy needs. It's a straight up descriptor of how organs function (hello biochem). Why do you keep ascribing negatives to keto all over the forums?0 -
Your body runs on glucose! You need it to create energy, literally! (cellular respiration, the mitochondrial electron transport chain..). Sure your body could survive, but you'd be lethargic and moody. Simple sugar is the quickest way to up your energy (which is why athletes eat chocolate or energy drinks before a race!). If you want that energy to be slow-releasing then eat complex carbs that are harder to break down (sweet potato for example), take longer to digest and won't spike your blood sugar.
p.s. i'm a medical student xD don't know if you can tell...0 -
realityfades wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
People have done ketosis for years at a time. As far as I know, there have not been any reported "detrimental" affects that you keep claiming. While I think keto is encouraged too much right now as the "cure-all", it is not some horrible, evil diet that will kill everyone like you seem to be implying.
I didn't claim anything. I asked if restricting carbs to a low amount for a long amount of time causes issues with organs. Other people chimed in and said the body can metabolize protein into glucose, which was helpful to know. Like I said, the whole reason I started even wondering about this is because of the NIH article I posted above and it kind of made me change the way I view nutrition.
But you're using terms all over the boards like "detrimental", "dangerous" "high liability for studying this diet" as if you understand that it is bad. The article you posted does not state that not eating carbs would prevent the body from eating those energy needs. It's a straight up descriptor of how organs function (hello biochem). Why do you keep ascribing negatives to keto all over the forums?
I just ASKED if it was detrimental to do low carb for a very long amount of time after reading about carbohydrates and organ health and what your body needs. Other people have given me good bits of info that I did not even know. And I ASKED if long term studies have been done and I was told no, and then I ASKED if that was due to liability issues, which someone cleared up and said no, it's due to cost effectiveness and that NO DIETS have been studied long term.
So you know what, I will apologize if anyone misconstrued what I was saying and assumed stuff as a result.0 -
realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
0 -
realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.
It's all good.
0 -
kasperwasper2016 wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.
It's all good.
Seriously. And I can't even change the thread title, MFP gives you a limit I think on how long you can edit, sigh. Thanks for understanding at least. I did learn a lot of new information, and knowledge is power.0 -
to the OP, the jury is out on long term (and I mean years and years of eating this way).. I am going to say without a shadow of a doubt (not for weight loss) eating like this will harm you.. I will also say that to be an athlete or body builder, weight lifter or an Olypian or just someone that uses their body in this manner for their profession they do not eat this way.
Is low carb for dieting temp ok, I would say yes and a low carb advised by a doctor for health, I would say ok only under a doctor supervision and it would be changed up upon the doctor opinion and recommendations.
I would hope that if there is a doctor, nutritionist or dieatician that has any background or knowledge in this area could respond here, but common sense tells me yes low carb for years and years can "possibly" harm you rather it is short term or long term, this what no one knows or is telling us.
On the other end of the spectrum, it could be that we all should be doing low carb and we are all doing it wrong..
I just choose to eat fruit, veggies, meat and oh yeah the yummy starchy carbs..
My disclaimer is this is IMHO and I am not a doctor.. Just a reagular user of MFP to diet and exercise and live healthy! LOL 0 -
realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
People have done ketosis for years at a time. As far as I know, there have not been any reported "detrimental" affects that you keep claiming. While I think keto is encouraged too much right now as the "cure-all", it is not some horrible, evil diet that will kill everyone like you seem to be implying.
This.0 -
I will also say that to be an athlete or body builder, weight lifter or an Olypian or just someone that uses their body in this manner for their profession they do not eat this way.
A sampling of low carb athletes.
0 -
kasperwasper2016 wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.
It's all good.
Good point @kasperwasper2016. That was true in my case and I have evolved my views since 2014.realityfades wrote: »kasperwasper2016 wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.
It's all good.
Seriously. And I can't even change the thread title, MFP gives you a limit I think on how long you can edit, sigh. Thanks for understanding at least. I did learn a lot of new information, and knowledge is power.
@realityfades your thread title is very good in fact. I had the same question back in 2014 when I started LCHF for pain management and it is 2016 and I am still on this Way Of Eating with great success.
While we humans require NO CARBS to have good health we will die if we do not eat enough protein and fat.
Somewhere around one half of our protein eaten can get converted to glucose as was mentioned already which meets our daily glucose needs.
Carbs can be a good source of food for many. Like some others my body got where it did not do well on a high carb diet so I cut my carbs to <50 grams of carbs daily.
Most people will not greatly reduce carbs even if carbs are leading to an early grave. It was the hardest thing I remember doing for my health but the positive results in my case means it was the right thing for me to do.
I wish I had done it at age 23 or even 43 vs doing it at age 63 if any younger people are reading.
Keep up your questions and reading because I expect your interest is justified.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »kasperwasper2016 wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.
It's all good.
Good point @kasperwasper2016. That was true in my case and I have evolved my views since 2014.realityfades wrote: »kasperwasper2016 wrote: »realityfades wrote: »During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.
This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.
We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.
It's all good.
Seriously. And I can't even change the thread title, MFP gives you a limit I think on how long you can edit, sigh. Thanks for understanding at least. I did learn a lot of new information, and knowledge is power.
@realityfades your thread title is very good in fact. I had the same question back in 2014 when I started LCHF for pain management and it is 2016 and I am still on this Way Of Eating with great success.
While we humans require NO CARBS to have good health we will die if we do not eat enough protein and fat.
As has been discussed above, not technically true. A small amount of carbs are needed to fuel the process of making what you need from other things. Irrelevant to the healthiness of a keto diet (because it's not NO carb), but I don't understand why some keto-evangelists here think it's so significant to push this false (from what I've read in nutrition textbooks) notion that you could go 0 carb.
Beyond this, of course, the healthiest diets tend to include more than the minimum of carbs, since many carbs (like vegetables) are high nutrient foods. People who eat more vegetables and fruits tend to be healthier in the various population studies, although I am sure there are a variety of reasons why. It's possible to get the nutrients from vegetables from other sources (like organ meats), but would be somewhat challenging.
That said, of course you can do low carb and eat lots of veg. I just don't get telling people that not eating veg is perfectly healthy.
Also, of course, the amount of protein and fat (and only certain kinds of fat) that you need is not that high. So you are left with a bunch of discretionary calories. You seem to be suggesting that because you need a some protein and fats that they are better choices for the remaining calories, but that doesn't follow at all.0 -
There's some evidence that it can work long term without killing you. Aside from all the people on this board that do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
Note that while the Inuit diet is higher in carbohydrates than originally thought, due to the presence of glycogen in their fresh meat, its generally much lower in carbs than, say, my diet.0 -
Low carb (actually keto) diets are prescribed by doctors for various medical conditions, including diabetes and epilepsy.
But the problem is that the article you've linked to doesn't show what you think it shows. In the absence of carbs, your body will convert protein to glucose, so there is no real need for any carbs at all in your diet (this is clear from the Inuit diet).
And no, high protein isn't bad for your kidneys unless you have a preexisting kidney condition.
Edit: OP, sorry you're getting crapped on for asking a questions. This topic has so much psuedo-science and non-science surrounding it that people who actually know stuff tend to get a little touchy about it after years of people who don't know anything at all posting about how your kidneys will fail (and other ridiculous claims) if you don't get enough carbs.0 -
Inuit diet isn't NO carb. It's not even thought to have put Inuits in ketosis.
Of course it's very low carb (and would put you and me in ketosis), and I'm not saying keto is unhealthy.0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Low carb (actually keto) diets are prescribed by doctors for various medical conditions, including diabetes and epilepsy.
But the problem is that the article you've linked to doesn't show what you think it shows. In the absence of carbs, your body will convert protein to glucose, so there is no real need for any carbs at all in your diet (this is clear from the Inuit diet).
And no, high protein isn't bad for your kidneys unless you have a preexisting kidney condition.
Edit: OP, sorry you're getting crapped on for asking a questions. This topic has so much psuedo-science and non-science surrounding it that people who actually know stuff tend to get a little touchy about it after years of people who don't know anything at all posting about how your kidneys will fail (and other ridiculous claims) if you don't get enough carbs.
If the OP asked questions as question and wasn't making statements (as in other threads), we wouldn't be giving her crap. Questions should be questions, but she is acting as an authority on the matter when she is in fact wrong.0 -
cross2bear wrote: »I was pretty successful on a low carb plan too, and I readily admit that I consider myself to be a "meat-a-holic", but there came a point when I craved some fruit or veg, so ultimately it was unsustainable for me. I developed kidneys stones a couple of years later, and my urologist said that low carb diets contribute to that condition - I think he was just trying to scare me, and it didnt work. Kidney stones are most often excess calcium deposits. I still have a couple of stones that are just sitting back, chillin', waiting to speak to me.
He may have been trying to scare you, but he was correct as well. That said, it's a bit like the 'cured meats causing cancer' business. Yes, the risk increases. No, it doesn't increase all that much. However, since you actually did have kidney stones he was not out of line to bring it up - as far as he knew, the diet could have been the tipping point for you.
That said, anyone reading this that has kidney issues better speak to your nephrologist before doing low carb if it is also high protein. Really, even if it is considered moderate protein.0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Low carb (actually keto) diets are prescribed by doctors for various medical conditions, including diabetes and epilepsy.
But the problem is that the article you've linked to doesn't show what you think it shows. In the absence of carbs, your body will convert protein to glucose, so there is no real need for any carbs at all in your diet (this is clear from the Inuit diet).
And no, high protein isn't bad for your kidneys unless you have a preexisting kidney condition.
Edit: OP, sorry you're getting crapped on for asking a questions. This topic has so much psuedo-science and non-science surrounding it that people who actually know stuff tend to get a little touchy about it after years of people who don't know anything at all posting about how your kidneys will fail (and other ridiculous claims) if you don't get enough carbs.
Are they actually thinking your kidneys fail without enough carbs, or with too much protein? I see the protein version fairly frequently. It's like the completely fallacious extrapolation that if a blood glucose spike is bad for a diabetic it must be bad for a healthy person. Since high protein can worsen the condition of people who already have kidney disease, it must also do the same for a person with healthy kidneys.0 -
realityfades wrote: »Yes, I was wondering if maybe there were long term studies done on low carb but I guess not, it might be too big of a liability.
Curious, how do you get glucose if you're following a low carb diet? Don't you eventually run out of glucose storage? Glucose is broken down into sugar and as far as I know, low carb bans most forms of sugar, even fruit and whatnot except for berries. Atkins specifically comes to mind.
I don't think long term studies have been done because it is expensive, not because it is a liability. LOLVery few long term diet studies have been done. Period. There was the Framingham study and the nurse's study (NIH I think). Those looked at the trendier lower fat diets at the time. Low carb just hasn't been studied yet.
You could look at Peter Attia md who has been in ketosis or low carb for many years. Phoney and Volek are other mds who have been LCHF for years while doing research on LCHF diets.
The body is always making glucose. You won't run out. There are a couple of very successful ultra marathoners, over 100 km races, who live and race in ketosis. The muscles won't run out of energy if you are using primarily fat for fuel.
Sugar isn't banned on a low carb diet. If one wanted to eat sugar for their carbs they could, but veggies is usually a more nutritious choice.0 -
There is no one type of "low carb" diet -- I do better on a LOWERr carb diet (feel better, more energy for exercise, less cravings) but there are many different responses. Some people do better (feel better, more energy, fewer cravings) on a higher carb diet. I say figure out what works for you to stick to your food plan macros, and lose or maintain your weight. The best approach is to see what helps you follow a CICO approach for the long term, and stick to your food plan.0
-
realityfades wrote: »I'm just wondering if low carb diets over years and years and years is ok for the brain and other body processes in the absence of glycogen.
Low carb eaters have glycogen and blood glucose to replenish it. The brain is a dual fuel organ it can get a large portion of its energy from ketones in the absence of dietary carbohydrate (see starvation studies, Cahill etc).
If you eat literally nothing it takes months to die (depending how fat you are) the brain doesn't go out like a candle on day 3.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Atkins isn't a keto diet. But lots of keto dieters eat 25 or less daily. Long term.
Atkins Phase 1 is very much a ketogenic diet. 20g of carbohydrates.0 -
I apologize if this was discussed in the article (I quickly skimmed it):
- The liver and muscles store a ton of glucose as glycogen (which are very long chains of glucose molecules). When blood glucose levels are low, the pancreas releases glucagon, which is a hormone that tells the liver to break down some of its glycogen into glucose.
Personally, I wouldn't follow a keto diet, because I'm very prone to going into diabetic ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis is very different from ketosis (ketoacidosis occurs from uncontrolled ketosis as a result of insulin deficiency, hyperglycemia, and dehydration), but I would have issues determining if I am urinating moderate ketones from a keto diet (and don't need to do any interventions), or if I'm urinating moderate ketones because of an insulin deficiency because of my insulin pump failing to administer insulin (which would require me to resolve the deficiency ASAP before ketoacidosis occurs).
The liver and muscles can store about a pound of glucose, not a ton. There's about a teaspoon of glucose in circulation in the blood.
Surely your blood glucose level would be the giveaway on the insulin pump working ? Urinary ketones are pretty unreliable for dietary levels of ketones (as opposed to illness = DKA). There's a group of T1D people using low carb to improve their HbA1c :-
0 - The liver and muscles store a ton of glucose as glycogen (which are very long chains of glucose molecules). When blood glucose levels are low, the pancreas releases glucagon, which is a hormone that tells the liver to break down some of its glycogen into glucose.
-
realityfades wrote: »Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.
Then you would guess wrong, yourself, in this instance.
There's a catchy little ditty somewhere out there that goes along the lines of "know thy enemy". Perhaps you should actually read Atkins version 2002-3 if you want to understand why the good Doctor made the Induction phase only two weeks long instead of guessing and speculating. The truth is sure to amaze and astound.
0 -
Very Low Carbohydrate Diets May Disrupt Long-term Gut Healt
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619173537.htm
Long-term Effects of a Very Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Low-Fat Diet on Mood and Cognitive Function
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
In conclusion, we found that despite similar weight loss after energy-restricted LC and LF diets for 12 months and rapid improvements in mood during the first 8 weeks with both diets, over the long term many of the benefits regressed in the LC diet group such that participants on the LF diet achieved better outcomes. However, there was no evidence that the dietary macronutrient composition of LC and LF diets affected cognitive functioning over the long term, as changes in cognitive function were similar for both diets. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of these diets on a wider range of cognitive domains.
Low-Carb Diet Facts, Benefits & Risks
http://www.livescience.com/52769-low-carb-diet-facts.html0 -
I apologize if this was discussed in the article (I quickly skimmed it):
- The liver and muscles store a ton of glucose as glycogen (which are very long chains of glucose molecules). When blood glucose levels are low, the pancreas releases glucagon, which is a hormone that tells the liver to break down some of its glycogen into glucose.
Personally, I wouldn't follow a keto diet, because I'm very prone to going into diabetic ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis is very different from ketosis (ketoacidosis occurs from uncontrolled ketosis as a result of insulin deficiency, hyperglycemia, and dehydration), but I would have issues determining if I am urinating moderate ketones from a keto diet (and don't need to do any interventions), or if I'm urinating moderate ketones because of an insulin deficiency because of my insulin pump failing to administer insulin (which would require me to resolve the deficiency ASAP before ketoacidosis occurs).
The liver and muscles can store about a pound of glucose, not a ton. There's about a teaspoon of glucose in circulation in the blood.
Surely your blood glucose level would be the giveaway on the insulin pump working ? Urinary ketones are pretty unreliable for dietary levels of ketones (as opposed to illness = DKA). There's a group of T1D people using low carb to improve their HbA1c :-
I'll use a personal example and why ketosis diets would give me a huge headache when troubleshooting pump issues: It's two hours since breakfast and an insulin pump change (inserted a new cartridge, freshly drawn insulin, new tubing, and a new infusion set). I'm eating a keto diet and had bacon with eggs for breakfast. I test my BG at the two hour mark and am at 230mg/dL (high, but not DKA high -I was diagnosed in the 570s). I test my urine for ketones, and they come back as moderate (moderate ketones can be produced from both keto diets and insulin deficiency).
Now, I have a tough decision to make. Do I assume that I am producing ketones from something within my pump failing (typically the plastic cannula hitting something and bending when I inserted it) and need to start troubleshooting and following pump failure protocols ASAP (correct the high with a syringe, change out the infusion set, drink lots of water, and assess BG and ketones every hour until I reach safer BG levels. If I can't bring it down within a few hours or start vomiting, assume DKA and head to the nearest ER.)? Or do I assume that I simply had a wicked high from breakfast (menstrual hormones? added stress? developing an illness? use of corticosteroids? insufficient basal insulin? diabetes being an absolute witch?) and don't need to do anything? If I assume pump issues when there wasn't anything, I wasted a full site change (those things are expensive); I could also have injected correction insulin, not have had an issue with my mealtime bolus, and could risk a severe low (my all-time lowest BG was from me taking a syringe correction for a high that was not responding to corrections through the pump -assuming that I was experiencing an infusion set problem- when I actually was receiving the pump corrections). If I assume nothing's wrong when my cannula is actually bent (and I'm not receiving any insulin), I could go into DKA within a few hours.
I'm in the middle of reading Dr. Bernstein's book. While I agree with him on the rule of small numbers and have ways I can apply his ideas (especially when eating out and having to carb guess the meal), I don't necessarily agree with his opinions of insulin pump therapy or insulin analogs. I found that I can achieve "normal" BG levels by manipulating the macronutrients of my meal, taking advantage of the timing of my mealtime insulin bolus (often prebolusing) and combining it with insulin-sensitizing exercises (such as taking a walk after eating breakfast to help control the spike or walking to help get more "bang for my buck" of insulin to correct a high blood sugar).0 - The liver and muscles store a ton of glucose as glycogen (which are very long chains of glucose molecules). When blood glucose levels are low, the pancreas releases glucagon, which is a hormone that tells the liver to break down some of its glycogen into glucose.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »As has been discussed above, not technically true. A small amount of carbs are needed to fuel the process of making what you need from other things. Irrelevant to the healthiness of a keto diet (because it's not NO carb), but I don't understand why some keto-evangelists here think it's so significant to push this false (from what I've read in nutrition textbooks) notion that you could go 0 carb.
Several scientific bodies and text books acknowledge that there is no requirement for dietary carbohydrate in order to sustain life. US IoM and EFSA for example in explaining their dietary recommendations.
While this is but an amusing technicality it would be misleading to say it was false.
If dietary carbohydrate is essential
a) what are the symptoms of inadequacy
b) what is the cause of death on zero carbs
c) How did a record setting Scotsman eat nothing at all for over a year
0 -
realityfades wrote: »I have a LOT of weight to lose. I have tried EVERY SINGLE DIET out there. I went back to low carb at the beginning of the year. I've lost 11.5 pounds so far. I know that will even out and lessen as time goes on. I will say that with this way of eating, I have never felt better. The first few days are the hardest as you detox from sugar/junk. Day four for me, honestly, I didn't think I was gonna make it. LOL I mean... I was beyond *kitten* to my husband, and wanted to cry. I felt nauseous. Woke up day five and felt like a new person. If you can stick it out the first few days knowing that it gets better, it's worth it. I feel amazing. No cravings...never starving. I usually have to remember to eat something...which at 150 lbs to lose you know is not something I'm used to having to remember Definitely no brain fog. I feel more alert, focused, etc. Had blood work done a few days back and it's all great. Cholesterol, triglycerides, everything. My biggest struggle is redoing everything about how I cook for my family. I have to relearn how to cook. My husband is diabetic, and it's helped his blood sugar numbers as well. He does eat a few more carbs just so his blood doesn't go to low.
That's great! I'm not saying a low carb diet is inefficient for weight loss. I'm just wondering if low carb diets over years and years and years is ok for the brain and other body processes in the absence of glycogen.
I CAN GUARANTEE the brain suffers in very short order if it is lacking glycogen. If the body isn't getting what the brain needs from the carbs the person is eating, it will get it elsewhere. The "keto flu" that people are talking about with grouchiness, irritability comes from a temporary shortage of glycogen while the body switches over to converting it's protein and fat stores to glycogen production.
But a person with brain impairment might not notice themselves. After all, our brain also serves as our own diagnostic, and it might be too impaired to notice. It's the people around them that will notice the differences the most.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions