Sugar withdrawal?
Replies
-
OP, you had previously said that you did not cut out sugar, you just reduced it. Was there clarification of how many carbs you are actually still eating (sorry, I skipped over all the ridiculous fighting). If you're still eating a fair amount of carbs, the keto argument is pointless.
Some people don't do well on low carb others do great. Give changes you make 4-6 weeks, but if you're still feeling bad, you may do better with more carbs (although not necessarily more sugar). You mentioned that your sugars were from fats and sweets, but it's hard to tell exactly what you cut out. If you cut out sodas, you might also be experiencing side effects from reducing the caffeine you've been drinking too.
I'm not one to demonize food, and so I personally still include in my diet things that some people might consider "junk" (like ice cream), just in smaller amounts. I personally have not had any issues with withdrawal symptoms since I have not cut anything out entirely.
The other thing you should consider is are you getting enough of your other nutrients. Are you eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables? Are you getting enough fats in your diet (since you seemed to mention cutting them along with sugar)?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).0 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »I do believe sugar is addictive and one can have symptoms that i characterize as the body going through withdrawal. Sugar is highly addictive. The more you eat, the more you crave. When I drastically reduced my sugar intake, it took about 2-3 months before I stopped having symptoms.
Whether you want to believe that you are experiencing withdrawal or sugar is addictive, I will say that many agree that yes, you can feel really icky for a while when you initially cut back on sugar. Hang in there!! It gets so much better once you get past this!
Absolutely. I was just on another thread where I was told by 'lemurcat12' that my sugar cravings were all in my head. Sugar is a highly addictive substance,and I'm trying to find my way out of it.
That's not really what I said, although I certainly don't think sugar (or carbs, as I guess people are claiming here) are addictive. (Recall, someone can get carbs only from sources like fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes and cut them out and get the keto flu. It has nothing to do with eating a healthy vs. unhealthy diet.)
I agreed with someone else who said the issue with cravings was frequently mental and I explained how I dealt with wanting to eat when I didn't think I should, and how that ultimately led the desire to mostly go away, because I thought my experiences might be helpful. If they weren't, maybe they will help someone else.
(I also mentioned that I quit eating added sugar for a few weeks as part of this, but also worked at changing my habits. If you really think you are addicted to sugar, it's a pretty simple answer -- don't eat it. Personally, I didn't quit all sugar since it wasn't an issue of addiction and I think fruits, vegetables, and dairy are part of a healthy diet.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).
I read that about the Inuit, too, but that seems like six of one half dozen of another. They did get berries and ate stomach contents of herbivores (fermented carbs I guess?) when they could, though.
I agree about the veggies, while I take a multivitamin I do like to get a few in here and there. I don't think multivitamins measure up.
Not sure about needing a little glucose intake, I'd love a study showing what the minimum is, and what would happen to someone who didn't get it (like would they drop dead on the spot, or survive for years and years?).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).
I read that about the Inuit, too, but that seems like six of one half dozen of another. They did get berries and ate stomach contents of herbivores (fermented carbs I guess?) when they could, though.
I agree about the veggies, while I take a multivitamin I do like to get a few in here and there. I don't think multivitamins measure up.
Not sure about needing a little glucose intake, I'd love a study showing what the minimum is, and what would happen to someone who didn't get it (like would they drop dead on the spot, or survive for years and years?).
This is what I'm looking at and possibly misinterpreting (from a nutrition textbook):The adult brain requires approximately 140 g of glucose per day, accounting for 560 kcal.... Both amino acids and triglycerides can be used to synthesize glucose. [My note: so far, then, no carbs are needed.] Gluconeogenesis can be produce approximately 130 g of glucose per day in the absence of carbohydrate intake if other nutrients are abundant. Although the glucose deficit can be compensated by ketone-body metabolism, fat oxidation also requires glucose. Once glycogen stores are depleted, therefore, a minimum intake of 50 g of glucose in any form appears to be necessary. Glucose can be produced endogenously, and it thus is not considered an essential nutrient.... [but goes on about minimum level of carbs needed for a balanced diet]
How I'm reading this is that normally you can make the glucose you need and fill any deficit with ketones, but if you let your glycogen get totally depleted you need to consume some carbs for the process to be possible. But it doesn't seem all that clearly written, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding.
(It's not an issue I've been that interested in since I think trying to eat a no carb diet would be crazy and unhealthy whether or not one could theoretically do it. But I happened upon this when reading the book a little while ago and wondered about it.)0 -
OP, you had previously said that you did not cut out sugar, you just reduced it. Was there clarification of how many carbs you are actually still eating (sorry, I skipped over all the ridiculous fighting). If you're still eating a fair amount of carbs, the keto argument is pointless.
I think this is right. Nothing OP said made it sound as if keto was the issue -- I tossed in an offhanded comment in trying to list out a bunch of possibilities, and now the thread is all about keto. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).
I read that about the Inuit, too, but that seems like six of one half dozen of another. They did get berries and ate stomach contents of herbivores (fermented carbs I guess?) when they could, though.
I agree about the veggies, while I take a multivitamin I do like to get a few in here and there. I don't think multivitamins measure up.
Not sure about needing a little glucose intake, I'd love a study showing what the minimum is, and what would happen to someone who didn't get it (like would they drop dead on the spot, or survive for years and years?).
This is what I'm looking at and possibly misinterpreting (from a nutrition textbook):The adult brain requires approximately 140 g of glucose per day, accounting for 560 kcal.... Both amino acids and triglycerides can be used to synthesize glucose. [My note: so far, then, no carbs are needed.] Gluconeogenesis can be produce approximately 130 g of glucose per day in the absence of carbohydrate intake if other nutrients are abundant. Although the glucose deficit can be compensated by ketone-body metabolism, fat oxidation also requires glucose. Once glycogen stores are depleted, therefore, a minimum intake of 50 g of glucose in any form appears to be necessary. Glucose can be produced endogenously, and it thus is not considered an essential nutrient.... [but goes on about minimum level of carbs needed for a balanced diet]
How I'm reading this is that normally you can make the glucose you need and fill any deficit with ketones, but if you let your glycogen get totally depleted you need to consume some carbs for the process to be possible. But it doesn't seem all that clearly written, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding.
(It's not an issue I've been that interested in since I think trying to eat a no carb diet would be crazy and unhealthy whether or not one could theoretically do it. But I happened upon this when reading the book a little while ago and wondered about it.)
Thanks! That doesn't seem clear at all to me either. Out of sheer curiousity I'd love to know, but I very much doubt I'd be able to go more than a few days without letting even 1/2 a carb into my diet, so it won't apply to me, either.
Edit: I did just remember something, though. There have been prisoners who went on water fasts until they died. It took months, so it's certain no one is going to drop dead in days or weeks on zero carb.0 -
Wow. Didn't really intend on creating an argument on here. I wad just seeking understanding and see if anyone else experienced the same. I just thought I would be feeling better, more energetic etc not tired. There were a lot of questions asked but here is what I am doing. I'm maintaining under 1900 calories a day and not compensating for my workouts...I probably should though. I'm not experiencing any flu symptoms etc just feeling different than I expected. I see there are a lot of opinions out there on this topic and I'm not going to interject my own but I know this, in my life I have quit drinking, smoking and now decreased sugar intake and the desire and cravings I have for the sugar treats I used to eat is quite similar to my cravings for cigarettes when I quit. I appreciate the input and feedback.0
-
Wow. Didn't really intend on creating an argument on here. I wad just seeking understanding and see if anyone else experienced the same. I just thought I would be feeling better, more energetic etc not tired. There were a lot of questions asked but here is what I am doing. I'm maintaining under 1900 calories a day and not compensating for my workouts...I probably should though. I'm not experiencing any flu symptoms etc just feeling different than I expected. I see there are a lot of opinions out there on this topic and I'm not going to interject my own but I know this, in my life I have quit drinking, smoking and now decreased sugar intake and the desire and cravings I have for the sugar treats I used to eat is quite similar to my cravings for cigarettes when I quit. I appreciate the input and feedback.
Sorry for my part in the derailing. Didn't someone mention if you'd cut down on sugar you might have inadvertently cut back on caffeine, too? Sounds plausible. And just cutting calories can sometimes make a person tired and out of sorts, especially if you've cut them by quite a lot.0 -
Wow. Didn't really intend on creating an argument on here. I wad just seeking understanding and see if anyone else experienced the same. I just thought I would be feeling better, more energetic etc not tired. There were a lot of questions asked but here is what I am doing. I'm maintaining under 1900 calories a day and not compensating for my workouts...I probably should though. I'm not experiencing any flu symptoms etc just feeling different than I expected. I see there are a lot of opinions out there on this topic and I'm not going to interject my own but I know this, in my life I have quit drinking, smoking and now decreased sugar intake and the desire and cravings I have for the sugar treats I used to eat is quite similar to my cravings for cigarettes when I quit. I appreciate the input and feedback.
OP thanks for coming back. Best of luck.
0 -
Wow. ..... I'm maintaining under 1900 calories a day and not compensating for my workouts...I probably should though.
By "maintaining" I'm going to assume that you meant you are eating at 1900 and losing, not maintaining your weight. MFP is designed to have you eat back exercise calories, otherwise you are creating a larger deficit then intended, which could lead to your symptoms. Best of luck.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
It's my understanding they don't eat their traditional diet anymore. And when they did an extremely harsh climate and lack of modern day medical care impacted lifespan but now Type 2 diabetes is on the rise with all the associated causes of death that goes with it.
Counterpoint: Epigenetics. What is good for them might not be good for everyone who didn't come from generations of high fat, low carb living. Who knows?
Nobody knows enough about any of this. Best to research as much as possible, then experiment to find what works best for you.
Biologically speaking, there's some bodily functions that just can't run on ketones, because they're vital for you gluconeogenesis is a thing your body can do.
Which means your body's absolute dependence on glucose is the thing that makes it even possible for you to go on an extremely low carb to no-carb diet to begin with.
My body is dependent on glucose. My liver makes it. If I eat too much protein my body turns that into glucose as well. I see no reason I can't drop my carbs to zero and be perfectly fine. But since my coffee and tea has miniscule carbs in it, I won't be doing that to find out!
Cutting out the vegetables to get there would likely lead to an unhealthy diet, however.
But since very few people even try to go to no carbs, the speculating about whether it's possible always strikes me as pretty irrelevant. I believe I've read that you need a little glucose to have the gluconeogenesis process happen, so I am not so sure about 0 carbs being feasible (and my understanding from the research I've seen is also that even the Inuit on their traditional diet likely were not ketogenic -- just on carb levels that would be ketogenic for most people).
I read that about the Inuit, too, but that seems like six of one half dozen of another. They did get berries and ate stomach contents of herbivores (fermented carbs I guess?) when they could, though.
I agree about the veggies, while I take a multivitamin I do like to get a few in here and there. I don't think multivitamins measure up.
Not sure about needing a little glucose intake, I'd love a study showing what the minimum is, and what would happen to someone who didn't get it (like would they drop dead on the spot, or survive for years and years?).
This is what I'm looking at and possibly misinterpreting (from a nutrition textbook):The adult brain requires approximately 140 g of glucose per day, accounting for 560 kcal.... Both amino acids and triglycerides can be used to synthesize glucose. [My note: so far, then, no carbs are needed.] Gluconeogenesis can be produce approximately 130 g of glucose per day in the absence of carbohydrate intake if other nutrients are abundant. Although the glucose deficit can be compensated by ketone-body metabolism, fat oxidation also requires glucose. Once glycogen stores are depleted, therefore, a minimum intake of 50 g of glucose in any form appears to be necessary. Glucose can be produced endogenously, and it thus is not considered an essential nutrient.... [but goes on about minimum level of carbs needed for a balanced diet]
How I'm reading this is that normally you can make the glucose you need and fill any deficit with ketones, but if you let your glycogen get totally depleted you need to consume some carbs for the process to be possible. But it doesn't seem all that clearly written, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding.
(It's not an issue I've been that interested in since I think trying to eat a no carb diet would be crazy and unhealthy whether or not one could theoretically do it. But I happened upon this when reading the book a little while ago and wondered about it.)
Just wanted to add that you may not know any extreme low carb eaters, there are folks that eat that way. Even meats, eggs and cheese have trace carbs so even though the WOE is called carnivore or zerocarb, they still get trace carbs. It is important to undéstand that there are healthy slim people whose diet is meat & water.
OP was restricting sugar, not carbs so this whole conversation is pretty much OT.
0 -
There are healthy slim people on all kinds of diets. Doesn't make the diet itself healthy.
Agree the carb discussion is OT, however -- seems unlikely that's related to OP's issues.0 -
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy0 -
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Learned something new yet again.0 -
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.0 -
Yeah, I was surprised to learn that. @Wheelhouse15 clued me in, so you can you thank him transitively.stevencloser wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Learned something new yet again.0 -
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)
It sounds like part of their adaptation is to not produce measurable ketones at levels we would produce them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they learn the Inuit are specifically adapted to lower carbs in every way, just like people born to many generations of high altitude peoples are adapted to high altitude.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)
It sounds like part of their adaptation is to not produce measurable ketones at levels we would produce them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they learn the Inuit are specifically adapted to lower carbs in every way, just like people born to many generations of high altitude peoples are adapted to high altitude.
There is a recent study on innuit genes that shows adaptive genes.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1343.short
It sounds like the sciencers are unclear on the meaning, but definite differences.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)
It sounds like part of their adaptation is to not produce measurable ketones at levels we would produce them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they learn the Inuit are specifically adapted to lower carbs in every way, just like people born to many generations of high altitude peoples are adapted to high altitude.
There is a recent study on innuit genes that shows adaptive genes.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1343.short
It sounds like the sciencers are unclear on the meaning, but definite differences.
Oh sweet, thanks for the link!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
cause and correlation
0 -
I think of ketosis as usually being under 100g of carbs / day, roughly. That corresponds to 400 kCal / day. At 20% of a diet, that would mean a less than 2000 kCal / day diet. I don't think a group of people that spend their days in manual labor without modern technological luxury, and performing hunting is only normally subsisting on under 2000 kCal /day.
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.0 -
The article you cite is about fat metabolism differences, not carbohydrates. It talks about genes forlemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)
It sounds like part of their adaptation is to not produce measurable ketones at levels we would produce them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they learn the Inuit are specifically adapted to lower carbs in every way, just like people born to many generations of high altitude peoples are adapted to high altitude.
There is a recent study on innuit genes that shows adaptive genes.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1343.short
It sounds like the sciencers are unclear on the meaning, but definite differences.
1. Producing more brown fat cells in their body for heat.
2. Better handling of high amounts of omega-3's in their diet.
Normally, Omega-3's, found strongly in a marine diet, cause anti-inflammation responses. Excessive amounts would of anti-inflammation is a bad thing, just as excessive inflammation is. I would therefore believe the adapations would be in terms of having a higher inflammation response than normal to compensate, but as this is just an outline, I do not know.
Nowhere does the abstract talk about a difference in carbohydrate metabolism or ketosis.
Just observations from a sciencer looking at the science.0 -
The article you cite is about fat metabolism differences, not carbohydrates. It talks about genes forlemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)
It sounds like part of their adaptation is to not produce measurable ketones at levels we would produce them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they learn the Inuit are specifically adapted to lower carbs in every way, just like people born to many generations of high altitude peoples are adapted to high altitude.
There is a recent study on innuit genes that shows adaptive genes.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1343.short
It sounds like the sciencers are unclear on the meaning, but definite differences.
1. Producing more brown fat cells in their body for heat.
2. Better handling of high amounts of omega-3's in their diet.
Normally, Omega-3's, found strongly in a marine diet, cause anti-inflammation responses. Excessive amounts would of anti-inflammation is a bad thing, just as excessive inflammation is. I would therefore believe the adapations would be in terms of having a higher inflammation response than normal to compensate, but as this is just an outline, I do not know.
Nowhere does the abstract talk about a difference in carbohydrate metabolism or ketosis.
Just observations from a sciencer looking at the science.
The article was linked to support the general speculation of genetic adaption to diet, that's all.
I'm pretty sure that a species would not ever develop an adaption to something that is negligably present in their existence and non-essential (inuit/carbs). Optimizing for high fat diet would seem to be the shizzle necessary.
0 -
wheatbellyblog.com/2012/04/wheat-is-an-opiate/
OK here is an explanation by the doctor himself and he does not say an addiction caused by modern wheat will give you a high like heroin but that it will make you feel hungry a couple of hours after you eat it. On average this will cause a person eating wheat to eat 160,600 more calories a year than the same person would eat if they ate nothing containing gliadin.
He writes, "This is the effect exerted by gliadin, the protein in wheat that was inadvertently altered by geneticists in the 1970s during efforts to increase yield. Just a few shifts in amino acids and gliadin in modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat became a potent appetite stimulant."
Gliadin is a new term for me. I did find the below research entitled, "Is gliadin really safe for non‐coeliac individuals? Production of interleukin 15 in biopsy culture from non‐coeliac individuals challenged with gliadin peptides"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1954879/
Sugar will not give you hunger like wheat he states. Most all eat sugar will also eat wheat I expect in one form or another. Because I gave up sugars and grains at the same time is the reason I tested what Dr. Davis stated about sugar by adding back sugar for eight days. It did not cause me to crash but I did gain 5-6 pounds. I will see how long it takes to lose that gain.0 -
It isn't even fat adaptations though. They're specifically adaptions to high levels of omega-3's. It is probably about as adaptive as lactase persistence in Western cultures - not terribly big news.
The article you cite is about fat metabolism differences, not carbohydrates. It talks about genes forlemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually the Inuit don't eat a ketogenic diet. Even in the winter when they turn to eating almost nothing but animal meat, they tend to eat raw portions of some animals (they'd become vitamin c deficient otherwise) and raw meat and blubber contains a fair amount of glycogen. As high as 20% of their diet is carbohydrate this way.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Sugar is a toxin in the same sense water is toxin, or salt is a toxin. Everything is poison if the dose is high enough.lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
I would disagree. You are exaggerating to try to make a point.
Withdrawal is the removal of something, often a toxin, when referring to health, or at the very least a less healthful, unnecessary substance, from your system and acclimating to a healthier set point. Sugar can be a toxin, diabetes wouldn't be as much of a problem is it wasn't.
Water and food are essential. Removing them is not what most would consider to be a withdrawal, but more of an attempt damaging one's health, not improving it.
JMOlemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
They're only contradictory if one presumes that "sugar withdrawal" == "low carb flu." It's certainly possible that "low carb flu" is not, in fact, "sugar withdrawal."lemurcat12 wrote: »Even though I'm putting really healthy and nourishing things in my body, I feel extremely tired and worn down. I'm sleeping better than I ever have before. Is this sugar withdrawal?
No, there's no such thing as sugar withdrawal (no more than there's food withdrawal just because starvation is unpleasant). Especially if you are eating sugar (which is in fruits and vegetables also).
....If you have actually cut carbs dramatically, it could be low carb flu, too.
.
Those two statements are a bit contradictory, IMO. There is a sugar withdrawal for many as there body adapts to a new way of using fuels. It is called the low carb flu when carbs are dropped a great deal. It is also called fat or keto adaptation.
This. Low carb flu is indeed the body adjusting to using ketones rather than glucose (this is not the same as fat adaption -- people not in ketosis can still burn fat, of course). But that doesn't mean that there was something "addictive" or maladapted about the body's use of glucose. If the keto flu is "sugar withdrawal," than the symptoms of starvation are "food withdrawal" and dehydration is "water withdrawal."
Wouldn't that be:
The symptoms of food withdrawal - starvation
The symptoms of water withdrawal - dehydration
?
Nope.
Starving is your body reacting to not having food. The unpleasant symptoms associated with it (hungry, weakness, weight loss, eventual death) are not, of course, normally considered a form of withdrawal, but it would make as much sense to call them such as it does to call the keto flu "sugar withdrawal."
We normally apply "withdrawal" to the body's reaction to being without something bad for us. But the reason you get keto flu isn't that you were "addicted to sugar" or that sugar (here, glucose) is bad for us or we are dependent on it in a way that is contrary to our well-being. It's a normal reaction due to the fact that the human body normal runs on glucose and seems to prefer to do so.
I don't think we've established that OP is likely to have keto flu, as it's not clear that he's gone low carb, just that he's cut down on junk food.
For close to half of the population, the bolded is indeed true. Sugar is bad for us, we are dependent on it until fat adapted, and it is contrary to our well being. I do not think that human bodies run best on glucose, but I do believe it uses glucose first because it needs to get the glucose out of the blood stream before damage is done.
I don't know of a single health issue that could be partially caused by a ketogenic diet, but I know of many health problems that may be caused (partiall) by too much glucose.
I know OP is probably not eating a ketogenic diet, but he is cutting sugar and feeling it. I doubt it is in his head.
Sugar is also fundamentally required for human life, like water or salt.
I have a hard time imagining why animal that's not too distant ancestors were frugivores would run better using fat for fuel than sugar.
Claiming glucose is like heroin, since the body prefers to run on glucose than other sources of energy, when every traditional human diet we know of is NOT ketogenic, is such a self-evidently silly position that it needs no response.
Again, if keto flu=withdrawal, the claim is not that excessive sugar is bad for us (which is obviously true) or even that sugar in any quantity is bad for us (which is generally false, certainly for normal people not on drugs like steroids or with a preexisting health condition or both), but that it is bad for us for the body to use glucose as fuel -- which is the norm in most if not all human populations.
This might also be a good time to mention that the Inuit, the one population I know of that eats traditionally ketogenic, apparently have a significantly shorter life span than the national averages of most first world countries, and it's not getting better.
Might have nothing to do with their diet, but worth mentioning anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy
Oh that's neat!
Found this, too:
http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/carbs-glycogen-meat-611.0.html
The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.
However, it concludes:
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
Still low enough for ketosis for everyone I've ever heard of.
The study I've seen was that Inuits go into ketosis at lower levels (for example, if fasting), but not that that level, even though for most of us that would be so low as to cause ketosis. The idea is adaptation.
(And this certainly could be related to Inuits doing worse on higher carb diets than some other groups, I suppose.)
It sounds like part of their adaptation is to not produce measurable ketones at levels we would produce them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they learn the Inuit are specifically adapted to lower carbs in every way, just like people born to many generations of high altitude peoples are adapted to high altitude.
There is a recent study on innuit genes that shows adaptive genes.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1343.short
It sounds like the sciencers are unclear on the meaning, but definite differences.
1. Producing more brown fat cells in their body for heat.
2. Better handling of high amounts of omega-3's in their diet.
Normally, Omega-3's, found strongly in a marine diet, cause anti-inflammation responses. Excessive amounts would of anti-inflammation is a bad thing, just as excessive inflammation is. I would therefore believe the adapations would be in terms of having a higher inflammation response than normal to compensate, but as this is just an outline, I do not know.
Nowhere does the abstract talk about a difference in carbohydrate metabolism or ketosis.
Just observations from a sciencer looking at the science.
The article was linked to support the general speculation of genetic adaption to diet, that's all.
I'm pretty sure that a species would not ever develop an adaption to something that is negligably present in their existence and non-essential (inuit/carbs). Optimizing for high fat diet would seem to be the shizzle necessary.
I'm also not sure why you'd want to show the Inuit are specially adapted to a low carb / high fat diet. The implication would be that there then is an evolutionary pressure on people that aren't adapted to it. This would mean for most people of European, Asian, and African descent eating low carb would be unhealthy - eating in such a way would apparently be problematic enough that it at some point killed off some Inuits at an early age or at least left them unable to reproduce as well as others.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »wheatbellyblog.com/2012/04/wheat-is-an-opiate/
OK here is an explanation by the doctor himself and he does not say an addiction caused by modern wheat will give you a high like heroin but that it will make you feel hungry a couple of hours after you eat it. On average this will cause a person eating wheat to eat 160,600 more calories a year than the same person would eat if they ate nothing containing gliadin.
He writes, "This is the effect exerted by gliadin, the protein in wheat that was inadvertently altered by geneticists in the 1970s during efforts to increase yield. Just a few shifts in amino acids and gliadin in modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat became a potent appetite stimulant."
Gliadin is a new term for me. I did find the below research entitled, "Is gliadin really safe for non‐coeliac individuals? Production of interleukin 15 in biopsy culture from non‐coeliac individuals challenged with gliadin peptides"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1954879/
Sugar will not give you hunger like wheat he states. Most all eat sugar will also eat wheat I expect in one form or another. Because I gave up sugars and grains at the same time is the reason I tested what Dr. Davis stated about sugar by adding back sugar for eight days. It did not cause me to crash but I did gain 5-6 pounds. I will see how long it takes to lose that gain.
Okay. If you want to say that wheat is an opiate and that therefore it is like heroin, you have to accept that endorphins (which comes from endogenous morphine, with morphine being an opiate) which are an opoid (biologically natural opiate) is therefore addictive too, just because the chemical structure is similar. Yet, I don't see daily posts on MFP about having exercise addiction or withdrawal. Could you tell me why that is?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »wheatbellyblog.com/2012/04/wheat-is-an-opiate/
OK here is an explanation by the doctor himself and he does not say an addiction caused by modern wheat will give you a high like heroin but that it will make you feel hungry a couple of hours after you eat it.
So this doesn't seem relevant to the OP, does it?
Also IME it's not true.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »wheatbellyblog.com/2012/04/wheat-is-an-opiate/
OK here is an explanation by the doctor himself and he does not say an addiction caused by modern wheat will give you a high like heroin but that it will make you feel hungry a couple of hours after you eat it. On average this will cause a person eating wheat to eat 160,600 more calories a year than the same person would eat if they ate nothing containing gliadin.
He writes, "This is the effect exerted by gliadin, the protein in wheat that was inadvertently altered by geneticists in the 1970s during efforts to increase yield. Just a few shifts in amino acids and gliadin in modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat became a potent appetite stimulant."
Gliadin is a new term for me. I did find the below research entitled, "Is gliadin really safe for non‐coeliac individuals? Production of interleukin 15 in biopsy culture from non‐coeliac individuals challenged with gliadin peptides"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1954879/
Sugar will not give you hunger like wheat he states. Most all eat sugar will also eat wheat I expect in one form or another. Because I gave up sugars and grains at the same time is the reason I tested what Dr. Davis stated about sugar by adding back sugar for eight days. It did not cause me to crash but I did gain 5-6 pounds. I will see how long it takes to lose that gain.
Okay. If you want to say that wheat is an opiate and that therefore it is like heroin, you have to accept that endorphins (which comes from endogenous morphine, with morphine being an opiate) which are an opoid (biologically natural opiate) is therefore addictive too, just because the chemical structure is similar. Yet, I don't see daily posts on MFP about having exercise addiction or withdrawal. Could you tell me why that is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_addiction
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
- 232.5K 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