Ketosis and nutrient-intake

Firstly do you have any symptoms of deficiencies ? Skin, hair, nails can show if you're short of something.

There are calculators online where you can enter a days detailed food and it tells you how your intake compares to recommended daily intakes, but for that you need weights of everything you ate & drank.

If you have a good variety of vegetables and fats you're likely to be ok for most things. Dairy may help with calcium etc.

There are daily RDAs set for nutrients to avoid deficiencies and whilst there is no essential need for carbs, many important vitamins and minerals are found in fruit and veg and this is probably why your family are concerned. Any diet that restricts calories is likely to be lower in nutrients than is ideal and so a multivitamin can be useful. Your carbs don't really need to be under 30g a day for ketosis if this is something you really want to achieve, and it appears that under 50g works just as well and this would allow you to incorporate a few more low carb fruits and veg into your diet which is always a good thing.

The calculator you are using is not based on RDA but just what they have recommended for a ketogenic diet so focusing on those will not be a decider on good health or micronutrient intakes. If there is one food group you are getting less of then a mutlivtiamin is always a good idea, but it doesn't guarantee absorption. The best sources are from food and nowadays foods are much lower in micronutrients than they used to be due to modern farming practices.

It's really hard to say whether you are losing muscle or fat, but with every diet that creates a calorie deficit you will lose a bit of both. Your body won't only burn muscle or only burn fat. Ketogenic diets are believed to cause the least muscle loss but I would recommend you monitor your protein intake as it's important to get enough, especially if you are exercising. But the fact you are losing more than what was estimated doesn't necessarily mean much as people lose weight at different rates and weight loss is not linear so you may reach a point where weight loss stops for a few weeks and then resumes, but as long as you are satisfied and not hungry or feeling bad then you don't need to up your calorie intake.

Extended keto causes muscle loss, as well as water weight loss. That's one reason why the scale drops so quickly at first. Your body needs glucose, so when you cut carbs, your body converts the protein you eat into glucose instead of using it to maintain muscle. Carbs also regulate growth hormone and spike insulin, and insulin is one of the main hormones responsible for muscle growth and maintenance, along side HGH and IGF-1 (both also requiring carbs for proper functioning.)

Combine that with you not having any idea how much you're actually eating, and it sounds like a recipe for muscle loss.

You've actually got it backwards; low carb diets have been shown to be muscle sparing. While your body needs some glucose, a low carb diet still includes some carbs, and your body needs less glucose on such a diet because certain functions use ketones instead. Your argument also makes no sense... long term it causes muscle loss and that's why the scale drops quickly at first? Are we talking long term or short term? You seem to mixing the two up. Either way, with ample protein intake and resistance training, there's nothing to indicate that a low carb diet leads to muscle loss. In fact, many people find they have an easier time hitting their protein macro following a low carb diet simply because of the food choices you're restricted to.

As for the OP's question about nutrient intake, a multivitamin and eating as many vegetables as you can is your best bet. At the end of the day, most people (low carb or not) fail to hit their RDA's. Unless you have a specific reason to think you're not getting enough nutrients (e.g., if you're only eating bacon and eggs and avoiding vegetables altogether), I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Hi guys! I've been in keto for exactly two months now and have been loving the all the weight that's been coming off & the way I feel. I haven't been measuring my food or really been keeping track of what I eat. All I've been doing is making sure that my carbs stay between 20 and 30g each day.

I recently talked to my family about how I've been losing weight, and they mentioned that I might not be getting the nutrients I ineed. I also had this concern, but I don't know exactly what vitamins and minerals I need. All I really know is that after putting in my weight/energy expenditure, the keto calc guidelines say to eat 70-80g protein, 20g carbs, and 90-110g fat each day. Where those numbers come from (ie: meat vs protein shake for protein, or veggies vs pasta for carbs) definitely matters in terms of nutritional differences, but I'm not sure how to calculate that. Should I be concerned about this, or should I only focus on carbs/protein/fat intake and not worry about nutrients at all? (The only supplement I take religiously is magnesium (the pill also includes vitamin D and calcium) to keep me regular. I take one 133mg pill twice a day.)

Also, according to the calc, I should be losing about 7.5 pounds a month. However, I've been losing closer to 12 pounds a month without monitoring fat/protein intake. (I find it really hard to monitor those two without a scale, so for the most part, I gave it up.) I assume this means I'm eating less fat/protein than what's listed. Is that bad? Does this mean I'm losing muscle mass instead of fat?

I am making an honest effort to stay on track and get healthy in the best way possible, but I'm having a hard time understanding all this nutritional stuff (probably why I'm overweight in the first place! lol). Any help understanding this would be really appreciated!!

I have a question - if you do not track your food, how do you know how many carbs add up in a day? do you just know the carb count of food?


woops, i see you answered it before i read the other person's post

so do you think because you ate a little bit of sugar in the fruit, even thought i twas lower carb, it still was enough to trigger your extra appetite?

I haven't noticed any symptoms of deficiencies. I did have some lower back pain that started when I went low carb, but I think that is getting better as I up my magnesium intake. I do have dairy each day (in the form of heavy cream or coconut milk), veggies, meat, and eggs. I try to stay away from fruits because I tend to overeat them- ditto low carb deserts, but occasional I will make cheesecake muffins or have homemade cocoa. When I first started low carb, I was eating 50-80g of carbs/day. Although I was losing weight, I was hungry all the time and just didn't feel right. When I lowered my carb intake to under 30g, my appetite decreased and I was able to focus on other things besides food! So that's why my carb intake is what it is.

It's not that I have no idea how much I'm eating- at first I was using the scale to measure everything (ie: exactly how many baby carrots were in my salad), but that got old pretty quick! I really just ballpark what I'm eating and find it's pretty accurate when it comes to carb intake- I use ketostix to determine whether I'm in ketosis. Fats and protein, though, are harder to ballpark. I may just have to measure meats and creams so that I know exactly how much I'm eating.

I've heard people claim on LCF and body building websites that animal products have the majority of the nutrients we need, and that veggies/fruits are only needed in very limited amounts. If I can find a link I'll post it, but I always found that hard to believe.

Coconut milk isn't dairy. Dairy comes from the milk of animals so unless you're using fortified coconut milk, you're not getting much calcium from dairy sources. Regular coconut milk is very low in calcium. Having said that, it's still a controversial issue on whether we really need as much calcium as is recommended or as we get older for that matter and other nutrients are showing more importance for bone health such as vitamin D, vitamin K2 and magnesium. Please be aware that taking a magnesium supplement with a low intake of calcium can result in further calcium loss and therefore deficiency and vice versa. I would recommend increasing your intake of green leafy veg, fish with edible bones in and some dairy.

There are low sugar fruits you can have that are low in carbs and are also not very sweet so they don't lead to the overeating that sweeter fruits such as oranges and pineapple do. Try raspberries, blackberries, grapefruit and green apples. As I mentioned earlier, 50g seems to be about the right amount to still induce ketosis so you may not have been achieving ketosis by going over 50g but there doesn't seem to be any need to be going under 30g and in the long term this low amount of carbohydrate shows elevated cortisol levels in studies which will hinder weight loss progress.

Ketostix aren't a reliable indicator for whether or not your body is in ketosis. All they tell you is whether you have ketones in your urine and they don't have to be in your urine for you to be in ketosis. If you are producing ketones and your body is using them all up then very few will show up in your urine.

You are correct that animal products contain enough micronutrients to avoid deficiency, but not enough for optimum health unless you are eating organ meats regularly. Muscle meats contain just enough vitamin C to avoid scurvy for example, but vitamin C is used for much more than just to prevent scurvy. If you are eating organ meats as well you may be getting enough micronutrients to meet the RDA, but if you're only eating muscle meats then it's highly unlikely that you are.

I was under the impression from what I've read- there is no fixed number on where ketosis happens- it's different for everyone- but it seems to be 40 and under is where you need to be- and it's different for men verses women.

I tried specifically looking that up and that was the best I came up with- I have limited resources at work due to fire walls- but that's what I walked away with in my brain.

I'm always shocked at how low people can manage- I have to eat nothing but meat and eggs and a very small portion of veggies to hit under 50-30- because even veggies can be carb dense.

I can average 50-100 fairly regularly- depending on how well I curb my ice cream LOL- but I also really like sweet potatoes- and those throw me way over all the time LOL.

I have read that you can be in ketosis eating up to 100g if you are working out, and hey, you go into ketosis any time your body is running off fat stores. But I did read from Lyle McDonald I believe that 50g seems to be the roundabout number where ketosis works best. Obviously I don't know this for a fact but I would always suggest someone play with amounts than immediately go as low as possible because that affects micronutrient and fibre intake.

I have read that you can be in ketosis eating up to 100g if you are working out, and hey, you go into ketosis any time your body is running off fat stores. But I did read from Lyle McDonald I believe that 50g seems to be the roundabout number where ketosis works best. Obviously I don't know this for a fact but I would always suggest someone play with amounts than immediately go as low as possible because that affects micronutrient and fibre intake.

Just a quick FYI, it's not quite correct to say "you go into ketosis any time your body is running off fat stores" ... Technically, running off fat-stores (lipolysis) happens once keto-adapted - which is different than just being in ketosis. Ketosis is simply a state of elevated ketone levels, and doesn't automatically mean you're keto-adapted. Keto-adaptation comes AFTER a period of ketosis - it's a biochemical shift from glycolysis (utilizing glucose) to lipolysis (utilizing lipids/fatty-acids) as the preferred source for cellular respiration.

I've been on a ketogenic diet for medical reasons for over 40 months now, and depending on what I'm doing I stay in ketosis at well-over 150g a day. But those are days I'm doing 5+ hours of cycling in the mountains. (BTW if I'm cycling on flatter terrain, I'll have less than half that amount of carbohydrate... )

*Typically* I have anywhere between 30 and 75g of carbohydrate per day - and test my levels daily with a blood ketone meter to ensure I stay in ketosis. It's the very odd (and high-exercise) day where I'll have more than that.

As for where it works best ... It seems to depend on an individuals caloric-intake AND exercise...

... Much of our research is indicating that *IF* at-least 65-70% of your calories come from fat, then anywhere around 8% of your caloric intake from carbohydrate is low-enough to be ketogenic for those that exercise moderately, and about 5% for those that don't exercise. Obviously, the lower you go, the faster you enter ketosis, and the faster you'll become keto-adapted.

And yes, taking in an excess of protein can interrupt the process. Many women (whose protein needs are slighlty less than men) find they need to be around 80% fat, 15% protein to both enter and stay in ketosis... Myself, I do fine at around 65%-70% fat and 20-25% protein ...

I'm really not sure what you're suggesting the difference between ketosis and burning fat for fuel is. Yes ketosis occurs when blood ketone levels are elevated, and ketone levels are elevated when the body is turning fat into ketones for use as fuel. If what you're saying about burning fat for fuel only happens once keto adapted, then anyone on a high carb diet wouldn't be able to burn off body fat and we know that isn't true so of course you don't have to be keto adapted in order to use fat stores for fuel.

I'm really not sure what you're suggesting the difference between ketosis and burning fat for fuel is. Yes ketosis occurs when blood ketone levels are elevated, and ketone levels are elevated when the body is turning fat into ketones for use as fuel. If what you're saying about burning fat for fuel only happens once keto adapted, then anyone on a high carb diet wouldn't be able to burn off body fat and we know that isn't true so of course you don't have to be keto adapted in order to use fat stores for fuel.

Sure, anyone on any diet can burn fat ... HOWEVER, fat doesn't become the body's PREFERRED source (ie: what it uses FIRST) until keto-adapted.

For the vast-majority of people in the world right now (even many low-carbers), their PREFERRED source of fuel is glucose - because they're not keto-adapted. Simply getting into ketosis doesn't make you keto-adapted, it's a physiological / biochemical shift that comes AFTER a period of ketosis. Once keto-adapted, however, that's when the metabolism shifts to PREFER fatty-acids/lipids/ketones for fueling cellular respiration.

So yes, if you want the body to primarily use FAT for fuel instead of glucose, you need to be keto-adapted, NOT just in ketosis.

Fat is never the "preferred" source of fuel. When you eat a ketogenic diet, your body runs off dietary fat because it has no other option, not because it suddenly develops a preference for it.

Glucose is always the preferred energy source. There's a reason that fat burning and glucose burning occur simultaneously at all times during normal human metabolism. It's because the body runs most efficiently using glucose, and the fat oxidization process is also most efficient when it utilizes glucose during the process.

The whole "keto adapted" phrase is really just pseudoscientific junk. Saying your body suddenly prefers fat for fuel after you've cut out almost all of its glucose is like saying someone who loses their legs in a horrific accident prefers to use a wheelchair instead of walking. It makes no sense.

I mean let's use logic. Once you become "keto adapted" and fat supposedly becomes the preferred source of fuel, that means you can increase all the carbs you want, and the body will still burn fat first, as it "prefers it," right? Oh wait, no, it immediately goes back to burning glucose... Because glucose is what the human body prefers.

This content has been removed.

Glucose in the bloodstream is tightly regulated, on account of too much being harmful. That's why it's burned first - to get the surplus out of the bloodstream. It's either burn it or store it, but homoeostasis wants shot of it either way.

At rest 70% of my calorie burn is from fats.

At rest 70% of everyone's calorie burn is from fat.

Also, too little glucose in the blood is just as harmful. The body doesn't burn glucose to regulate blood sugar levels. Blood sugar levels are regulated by insulin, which takes glucose out of the blood and stores it in muscle or the liver (and delivers to the other various organs that require glucose for proper functioning, like your spinal cord,) and glucagon, which tells your liver to release glucose back into your bloodstream to increase it.

No. Ketones are a product of fat oxidation. Ketones don't burn fat. Fat burning creates ketones. To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're even trying to ask, because it's a question that doesn't really make sense.

I was asking if you are talking about 70% of everyone's calorie burn coming from Ketones?

And the answer to that is no, as that question doesn't make sense. It's like asking if a fire comes from the smoke. Completely backwards.

There is a common misconception that the body has a preference for glucose. In fact, when one says that glucose is the preferred source biochemically, one means that the body will burn available glucose prior to protein, fat, ketones. If you look at it, alcohol is preferred over glucose, because the body will use alcohol preferentially over glucose. It does this because too high of a serum alcohol level is toxic to cells, just as too high of a serum glucose is toxic.

So what happens when you have a blood alcohol level of zero? Now how about a blood glucose level of zero? Your comparison is highly flawed.