Is low carb dangerous? possibly.

realityfades wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

realityfades wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.

This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.

People have done ketosis for years at a time. As far as I know, there have not been any reported "detrimental" affects that you keep claiming. While I think keto is encouraged too much right now as the "cure-all", it is not some horrible, evil diet that will kill everyone like you seem to be implying.

I didn't claim anything. I asked if restricting carbs to a low amount for a long amount of time causes issues with organs. Other people chimed in and said the body can metabolize protein into glucose, which was helpful to know. Like I said, the whole reason I started even wondering about this is because of the NIH article I posted above and it kind of made me change the way I view nutrition.

But you're using terms all over the boards like "detrimental", "dangerous" "high liability for studying this diet" as if you understand that it is bad. The article you posted does not state that not eating carbs would prevent the body from eating those energy needs. It's a straight up descriptor of how organs function (hello biochem). Why do you keep ascribing negatives to keto all over the forums?

Hornsby wrote: »

realityfades wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.

This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.

But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.

We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.

It's all good.

to the OP, the jury is out on long term (and I mean years and years of eating this way).. I am going to say without a shadow of a doubt (not for weight loss) eating like this will harm you.. I will also say that to be an athlete or body builder, weight lifter or an Olypian or just someone that uses their body in this manner for their profession they do not eat this way.

Is low carb for dieting temp ok, I would say yes and a low carb advised by a doctor for health, I would say ok only under a doctor supervision and it would be changed up upon the doctor opinion and recommendations.

I would hope that if there is a doctor, nutritionist or dieatician that has any background or knowledge in this area could respond here, but common sense tells me yes low carb for years and years can "possibly" harm you rather it is short term or long term, this what no one knows or is telling us.

On the other end of the spectrum, it could be that we all should be doing low carb and we are all doing it wrong..

I just choose to eat fruit, veggies, meat and oh yeah the yummy starchy carbs..

My disclaimer is this is IMHO and I am not a doctor.. Just a reagular user of MFP to diet and exercise and live healthy! LOL

gia07 wrote: »

I will also say that to be an athlete or body builder, weight lifter or an Olypian or just someone that uses their body in this manner for their profession they do not eat this way.

A sampling of low carb athletes.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

kasperwasper2016 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

realityfades wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.

This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.

But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.

We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.

It's all good.

Good point @kasperwasper2016. That was true in my case and I have evolved my views since 2014.

realityfades wrote: »

kasperwasper2016 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

realityfades wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

During periods of low carbohydrate intake, the body begins favoring different metabolic pathways.
In such a state, the brain's demand for glucose becomes partially met by using ketones, and to a lesser extent, possibly lactic acid. In such a state, the needs go from the usual ~120g/day to around ~25g/day.

This last ~25g remains so vital, however, that your body is capable of gluconeogenesis to make glucose out of various substances: lactate, glycerol (possibly stripped from a triglyceride / fat), alanine (amino acid), and glutamine (amino acid), and about 10% other substances, many of them other amino acids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.

But even after that...you posted this... "certainly be detrimental". That doesn't sound like a question rather than a statement of fact.

We all have preconceived notions regarding food & nutrition. We all hang on to them for a time while learning something new.

It's all good.

Seriously. And I can't even change the thread title, MFP gives you a limit I think on how long you can edit, sigh. Thanks for understanding at least. I did learn a lot of new information, and knowledge is power.

@realityfades your thread title is very good in fact. I had the same question back in 2014 when I started LCHF for pain management and it is 2016 and I am still on this Way Of Eating with great success.

While we humans require NO CARBS to have good health we will die if we do not eat enough protein and fat.

As has been discussed above, not technically true. A small amount of carbs are needed to fuel the process of making what you need from other things. Irrelevant to the healthiness of a keto diet (because it's not NO carb), but I don't understand why some keto-evangelists here think it's so significant to push this false (from what I've read in nutrition textbooks) notion that you could go 0 carb.

Beyond this, of course, the healthiest diets tend to include more than the minimum of carbs, since many carbs (like vegetables) are high nutrient foods. People who eat more vegetables and fruits tend to be healthier in the various population studies, although I am sure there are a variety of reasons why. It's possible to get the nutrients from vegetables from other sources (like organ meats), but would be somewhat challenging.

That said, of course you can do low carb and eat lots of veg. I just don't get telling people that not eating veg is perfectly healthy.

Also, of course, the amount of protein and fat (and only certain kinds of fat) that you need is not that high. So you are left with a bunch of discretionary calories. You seem to be suggesting that because you need a some protein and fats that they are better choices for the remaining calories, but that doesn't follow at all.

Low carb (actually keto) diets are prescribed by doctors for various medical conditions, including diabetes and epilepsy.

But the problem is that the article you've linked to doesn't show what you think it shows. In the absence of carbs, your body will convert protein to glucose, so there is no real need for any carbs at all in your diet (this is clear from the Inuit diet).

And no, high protein isn't bad for your kidneys unless you have a preexisting kidney condition.

Edit: OP, sorry you're getting crapped on for asking a questions. This topic has so much psuedo-science and non-science surrounding it that people who actually know stuff tend to get a little touchy about it after years of people who don't know anything at all posting about how your kidneys will fail (and other ridiculous claims) if you don't get enough carbs.

xmichaelyx wrote: »

Low carb (actually keto) diets are prescribed by doctors for various medical conditions, including diabetes and epilepsy.

But the problem is that the article you've linked to doesn't show what you think it shows. In the absence of carbs, your body will convert protein to glucose, so there is no real need for any carbs at all in your diet (this is clear from the Inuit diet).

And no, high protein isn't bad for your kidneys unless you have a preexisting kidney condition.

Edit: OP, sorry you're getting crapped on for asking a questions. This topic has so much psuedo-science and non-science surrounding it that people who actually know stuff tend to get a little touchy about it after years of people who don't know anything at all posting about how your kidneys will fail (and other ridiculous claims) if you don't get enough carbs.

If the OP asked questions as question and wasn't making statements (as in other threads), we wouldn't be giving her crap. Questions should be questions, but she is acting as an authority on the matter when she is in fact wrong.

xmichaelyx wrote: »

Low carb (actually keto) diets are prescribed by doctors for various medical conditions, including diabetes and epilepsy.

But the problem is that the article you've linked to doesn't show what you think it shows. In the absence of carbs, your body will convert protein to glucose, so there is no real need for any carbs at all in your diet (this is clear from the Inuit diet).

And no, high protein isn't bad for your kidneys unless you have a preexisting kidney condition.

Edit: OP, sorry you're getting crapped on for asking a questions. This topic has so much psuedo-science and non-science surrounding it that people who actually know stuff tend to get a little touchy about it after years of people who don't know anything at all posting about how your kidneys will fail (and other ridiculous claims) if you don't get enough carbs.

Are they actually thinking your kidneys fail without enough carbs, or with too much protein? I see the protein version fairly frequently. It's like the completely fallacious extrapolation that if a blood glucose spike is bad for a diabetic it must be bad for a healthy person. Since high protein can worsen the condition of people who already have kidney disease, it must also do the same for a person with healthy kidneys.

There is no one type of "low carb" diet -- I do better on a LOWERr carb diet (feel better, more energy for exercise, less cravings) but there are many different responses. Some people do better (feel better, more energy, fewer cravings) on a higher carb diet. I say figure out what works for you to stick to your food plan macros, and lose or maintain your weight. The best approach is to see what helps you follow a CICO approach for the long term, and stick to your food plan.

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

Atkins isn't a keto diet. But lots of keto dieters eat 25 or less daily. Long term.

Atkins Phase 1 is very much a ketogenic diet. 20g of carbohydrates.

realityfades wrote: »

Thanks for the bit of info. I guess that's why Atkins has such a short induction phase. The amount of carbs allowed on that would certainly be detrimental if done for very long periods of time.

Then you would guess wrong, yourself, in this instance.

There's a catchy little ditty somewhere out there that goes along the lines of "know thy enemy". Perhaps you should actually read Atkins version 2002-3 if you want to understand why the good Doctor made the Induction phase only two weeks long instead of guessing and speculating. The truth is sure to amaze and astound.

yarwell wrote: »

abatonfan wrote: »

I apologize if this was discussed in the article (I quickly skimmed it):

• The liver and muscles store a ton of glucose as glycogen (which are very long chains of glucose molecules). When blood glucose levels are low, the pancreas releases glucagon, which is a hormone that tells the liver to break down some of its glycogen into glucose.
  
  Personally, I wouldn't follow a keto diet, because I'm very prone to going into diabetic ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis is very different from ketosis (ketoacidosis occurs from uncontrolled ketosis as a result of insulin deficiency, hyperglycemia, and dehydration), but I would have issues determining if I am urinating moderate ketones from a keto diet (and don't need to do any interventions), or if I'm urinating moderate ketones because of an insulin deficiency because of my insulin pump failing to administer insulin (which would require me to resolve the deficiency ASAP before ketoacidosis occurs).

The liver and muscles can store about a pound of glucose, not a ton. There's about a teaspoon of glucose in circulation in the blood.

Surely your blood glucose level would be the giveaway on the insulin pump working ? Urinary ketones are pretty unreliable for dietary levels of ketones (as opposed to illness = DKA). There's a group of T1D people using low carb to improve their HbA1c :-

I'll use a personal example and why ketosis diets would give me a huge headache when troubleshooting pump issues: It's two hours since breakfast and an insulin pump change (inserted a new cartridge, freshly drawn insulin, new tubing, and a new infusion set). I'm eating a keto diet and had bacon with eggs for breakfast. I test my BG at the two hour mark and am at 230mg/dL (high, but not DKA high -I was diagnosed in the 570s). I test my urine for ketones, and they come back as moderate (moderate ketones can be produced from both keto diets and insulin deficiency).

Now, I have a tough decision to make. Do I assume that I am producing ketones from something within my pump failing (typically the plastic cannula hitting something and bending when I inserted it) and need to start troubleshooting and following pump failure protocols ASAP (correct the high with a syringe, change out the infusion set, drink lots of water, and assess BG and ketones every hour until I reach safer BG levels. If I can't bring it down within a few hours or start vomiting, assume DKA and head to the nearest ER.)? Or do I assume that I simply had a wicked high from breakfast (menstrual hormones? added stress? developing an illness? use of corticosteroids? insufficient basal insulin? diabetes being an absolute witch?) and don't need to do anything? If I assume pump issues when there wasn't anything, I wasted a full site change (those things are expensive); I could also have injected correction insulin, not have had an issue with my mealtime bolus, and could risk a severe low (my all-time lowest BG was from me taking a syringe correction for a high that was not responding to corrections through the pump -assuming that I was experiencing an infusion set problem- when I actually was receiving the pump corrections). If I assume nothing's wrong when my cannula is actually bent (and I'm not receiving any insulin), I could go into DKA within a few hours.

I'm in the middle of reading Dr. Bernstein's book. While I agree with him on the rule of small numbers and have ways I can apply his ideas (especially when eating out and having to carb guess the meal), I don't necessarily agree with his opinions of insulin pump therapy or insulin analogs. I found that I can achieve "normal" BG levels by manipulating the macronutrients of my meal, taking advantage of the timing of my mealtime insulin bolus (often prebolusing) and combining it with insulin-sensitizing exercises (such as taking a walk after eating breakfast to help control the spike or walking to help get more "bang for my buck" of insulin to correct a high blood sugar).

realityfades wrote: »

Fritz00 wrote: »

I have a LOT of weight to lose. I have tried EVERY SINGLE DIET out there. I went back to low carb at the beginning of the year. I've lost 11.5 pounds so far. I know that will even out and lessen as time goes on. I will say that with this way of eating, I have never felt better. The first few days are the hardest as you detox from sugar/junk. Day four for me, honestly, I didn't think I was gonna make it. LOL I mean... I was beyond *kitten* to my husband, and wanted to cry. I felt nauseous. Woke up day five and felt like a new person. If you can stick it out the first few days knowing that it gets better, it's worth it. I feel amazing. No cravings...never starving. I usually have to remember to eat something...which at 150 lbs to lose you know is not something I'm used to having to remember Definitely no brain fog. I feel more alert, focused, etc. Had blood work done a few days back and it's all great. Cholesterol, triglycerides, everything. My biggest struggle is redoing everything about how I cook for my family. I have to relearn how to cook. My husband is diabetic, and it's helped his blood sugar numbers as well. He does eat a few more carbs just so his blood doesn't go to low.

That's great! I'm not saying a low carb diet is inefficient for weight loss. I'm just wondering if low carb diets over years and years and years is ok for the brain and other body processes in the absence of glycogen.

I CAN GUARANTEE the brain suffers in very short order if it is lacking glycogen. If the body isn't getting what the brain needs from the carbs the person is eating, it will get it elsewhere. The "keto flu" that people are talking about with grouchiness, irritability comes from a temporary shortage of glycogen while the body switches over to converting it's protein and fat stores to glycogen production.

But a person with brain impairment might not notice themselves. After all, our brain also serves as our own diagnostic, and it might be too impaired to notice. It's the people around them that will notice the differences the most.