Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

The purpose of Ketones

2»

Replies

  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    This is where people who folllow low carb gurus are going to pay a heavy price.

    Well at least we know the inputs come from people who had not experienced the keto eating life style. :)

    While I did not go LCHF to lose weight the weight loss was an accident that took place. After keto cured my cravings the weight came off without having to count calories in my case.

    Plenty of people have tried low carb/keto and paid the piper
    https://www.facebook.com/180degreehealth/posts/1193989860629357

    That's an opinion piece, offering no citations, not only an opinion piece, but one intended to sell books. Do you have peer-reviewed studies that support the assertion that months or years of not eating carbs will cause "insomnia, low energy levels, depression, dry skin, constipation, sexual apathy, and so on?"

    Dude is selling books on how to raise your metabolic rate: http://www.amazon.com/Matt-Stone/e/B001KIM1IA/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=180degr-20

    Exactly.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    I wonder if the difference between a <100 carb diet and a <50 carb diet is anything.

    I was thinking the same... Particularly the part of what 'could' happen if one goes back to eating carbs, referenced by @dpwellman

    I think the only thing that happens is your body reverts back to whatever weight it was... If you go back to eating the way your were.

    There is a transient rise in insulin resistance but that is gone within days. You'd regain up to 2-4 lbs of water weight when you start retaining water again. That's most likely it.

    The body knows how to handle glucose. It won't forget. It should have no problems going back to glucose burning if moderate carbs are reintroduced. Just the like the body did't forget how to make ketones before you starting eating fewer than 120-150g of carbs per day.
  • Christine_72Christine_72 Posts: 16,074Member Member Posts: 16,074Member Member
    Thanks for the clarification @nvmomketo
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    Can't say I've heard that before. Do you have any sources for that?
  • eric_sg61eric_sg61 Posts: 2,931Member Member Posts: 2,931Member Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    This is where people who folllow low carb gurus are going to pay a heavy price.

    Well at least we know the inputs come from people who had not experienced the keto eating life style. :)

    While I did not go LCHF to lose weight the weight loss was an accident that took place. After keto cured my cravings the weight came off without having to count calories in my case.

    Plenty of people have tried low carb/keto and paid the piper
    https://www.facebook.com/180degreehealth/posts/1193989860629357

    That's an opinion piece, offering no citations, not only an opinion piece, but one intended to sell books. Do you have peer-reviewed studies that support the assertion that months or years of not eating carbs will cause "insomnia, low energy levels, depression, dry skin, constipation, sexual apathy, and so on?"

    Dude is selling books on how to raise your metabolic rate: http://www.amazon.com/Matt-Stone/e/B001KIM1IA/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=180degr-20

    People are reporting these experiences with long term keto everywhere! How many people have you trained and consulted with their nutrition?
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    lithezebra wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    This is where people who folllow low carb gurus are going to pay a heavy price.

    Well at least we know the inputs come from people who had not experienced the keto eating life style. :)

    While I did not go LCHF to lose weight the weight loss was an accident that took place. After keto cured my cravings the weight came off without having to count calories in my case.

    Plenty of people have tried low carb/keto and paid the piper
    https://www.facebook.com/180degreehealth/posts/1193989860629357

    That's an opinion piece, offering no citations, not only an opinion piece, but one intended to sell books. Do you have peer-reviewed studies that support the assertion that months or years of not eating carbs will cause "insomnia, low energy levels, depression, dry skin, constipation, sexual apathy, and so on?"

    Dude is selling books on how to raise your metabolic rate: http://www.amazon.com/Matt-Stone/e/B001KIM1IA/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=180degr-20

    People are reporting these experiences with long term keto everywhere! How many people have you trained and consulted with their nutrition?

    Something more than your experience would be nice though.
  • lithezebralithezebra Posts: 3,684Member Member Posts: 3,684Member Member
    To summarize why ketones are useful, even though they're going to be turned back into Acetyl CoA, (from sources cited earlier in this thread):

    - You can make more Acetyl CoA than you can use in the TCA cycle, and the liver can make the excess into ketone bodies, to be transported to the brain, heart and other tissues that can utilize ketones.

    - Unlike fatty acids, ketone bodies can cross the blood brain barrier and provide the brain with energy.

    - Ketone catabolism may provide more energy per oxygen molecule used, reducing the formation of reactive oxygen species.

    - Over time, a ketogenic diet increases the number of mitochondria in brain cells, which may have benefits.

    - Ketones in the brain may decrease the secretion of glutamate, an exitatory neurotransmitter and increase GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter. This may be related to the beneficial effects that ketogenic diets have on seizures. It may also have other neuroprotective benefits. For example, much of the damage done in a stroke or a head injury is from the glutamate that is released. http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2007/Protecting_the_Brain_from_a_Glutamate_Storm/

    edited March 2016
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    This is where people who folllow low carb gurus are going to pay a heavy price.

    Well at least we know the inputs come from people who had not experienced the keto eating life style. :)

    While I did not go LCHF to lose weight the weight loss was an accident that took place. After keto cured my cravings the weight came off without having to count calories in my case.

    Plenty of people have tried low carb/keto and paid the piper
    https://www.facebook.com/180degreehealth/posts/1193989860629357

    I know. It cost me fifty pounds over a year ago and I still have not been able to eat them back yet.
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    lithezebra wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    This is where people who folllow low carb gurus are going to pay a heavy price.

    Well at least we know the inputs come from people who had not experienced the keto eating life style. :)

    While I did not go LCHF to lose weight the weight loss was an accident that took place. After keto cured my cravings the weight came off without having to count calories in my case.

    Plenty of people have tried low carb/keto and paid the piper
    https://www.facebook.com/180degreehealth/posts/1193989860629357

    That's an opinion piece, offering no citations, not only an opinion piece, but one intended to sell books. Do you have peer-reviewed studies that support the assertion that months or years of not eating carbs will cause "insomnia, low energy levels, depression, dry skin, constipation, sexual apathy, and so on?"

    Dude is selling books on how to raise your metabolic rate: http://www.amazon.com/Matt-Stone/e/B001KIM1IA/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=180degr-20

    People are reporting these experiences with long term keto everywhere! How many people have you trained and consulted with their nutrition?

    Something more than your experience would be nice though.

    This is so true in a debate. Keep in mind not all are here to learn more. I have been living in some state of ketosis for 1.5 years due to learning in my case if I cut out sugars and all forms of grains that my pain of 40 years could be well managed by eating my macro giving me improving health/health markers.

    Is it the ketones or just my new eating lifestyle that for some reason results in ketone production? I do not know and do not care. At this point in time I plan to be eating this way hopefully 50 years from now and it it produced no ketones it would not matter.

    Medically it is known ketones levels in the .5-3 range (nutritional ketosis range) are not harmful and without them our gene pool would have dried up long ago in all likelihood.

    Ketones are not any more magically than glucose and are not to be worshiped like some religion.

    They are a natural source of energy that our bodies can both produce and use for energy. My healthcare/science background forces me to assume that is not due to just some non useful accident. :)
    edited March 2016
  • auddiiauddii Posts: 15,410Member Member Posts: 15,410Member Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    Great question! I don't know, but I'd like to figure it out. This blog post from Scientific American is relevant. It suggests that you get more energy per unit of oxygen out of fatty acids than out of carbs, which could decrease oxidative stress. Apparently long term ketosis also increases the number of mitochondria in the brain.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/

    I'm going all the way back here because it seems that this thread got derailed not long after this post. (Including two mods bickering, which is fun.)

    Anyways, firstly, whatever dish is pictured in the article looks absolutely delicious!!

    Secondly, I would think that ketosis increases mitochondria in the brain because it's a less efficient fuel source (yes, I read that one particular ketone may be more efficient that glucose, but I believe overall it has been shown that ketones are less effective as an energy source). So, more mitochondria are produced to help up energy production in the brain. I'm curious what would happen if the "stress" of the ketogenic diet were removed?

    Purely guessing, but I would think that the upregulation of the genes leading to increase mitochondria production would stop, and I'm curious if the mitochondria that were created would remain or not. I'm assuming there's turnover, and at some point they would return to "normal" levels, but no clue how long that would take.

    I also find it interesting that ketogenic diets have been long used to treat seizures, but direct injection of ketones have been shown to induce seizures. Granted, too much of a good thing can always be bad, and as we mention over and over, it's about context, so inducing non-normal situations can lead to interesting results, but may not be applicable to someone on a ketogenic diet.

    Something else I find interesting is the randomized, controlled trial that showed cognitive improvement with an oral supplement of ketones while keeping dietary intake the same between both groups. Many people would not be able to stick to a ketogenic lifestyle, but if a similar effect can be seen with a supplement, that might provide more options to a wider variety of individuals (I'm still not going to run to the store and buy raspberry ketones).



    And I like the big take home message. There are a few loud people who claim that ketosis has helped their medical condition to the point that they don't need medication. And that's great. But those people should not tell others to stop taking medication and start a ketogenic diet instead. And there should be no shame in people continuing to take the medication prescribed to them by their doctor. I would not start up a diet and drop my medication just because a few people claimed it worked. I could see maybe trying the diet and working with your doctor to monitor progress and actual levels of medication needed, but telling someone to stop their medication and start a diet is just dangerous.
  • robertw486robertw486 Posts: 1,998Member, Greeter, Premium Member Posts: 1,998Member, Greeter, Premium Member
    I'm hoping more of the keto informed crowd will input here. I think I know just enough to be dangerous with assumptions.

    But from my understanding most of us have the ability at some point to get the energy from ketones without going really low carb or dietary ketosis. I've been reading up on some of the keto adapted endurance athletes who essentially use the ketone levels much like those of us on a conventional diet might few glycogen levels. And from what I'm reading, they can also somewhat carb load (relative to their diet) and as such pull energy from both systems fairly well on longer events.

    And I think some of the differences in RER/RQ at below ketosis diet levels are influenced by ketones, which explains some of the differences person to person.



    But I'd like to point out that the "no going back" theory is just scientific woo IMO. Switching from low carb or keto back to a conventional diet would likely replenish glycogen and include some weight shift, but as with any eating type the threat of any long term weight gain, maintenance, or loss still boils down to energy balance. If anyone is claiming keto somehow "breaks" the reality of CICO long term, I'm open to scientific studies stating so.
  • coreyreichlecoreyreichle Posts: 1,039Member Member Posts: 1,039Member Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    dpwellman wrote: »

    During ketosis, the liver has to use the stuff that is necessary to do this for gluconeogenesis though, so it instead creates Ketones out of the Acetyl-CoA. But it looks like the only way Ketones can be used to get energy is to get turned back to Acetyl-CoA, so what exactly are the Ketones good for then if they need to get turned back into what it was before?
    That is correct. They're good for when glucose is unavailable. As long as one's liver is healthy and otherwise under-taxed, keytones can be used as energy in a "pinch"

    The following applies to otherwise healthy individuals

    So why do people (in the pursuit of weight loss) try to force ketosis? Because it has very rapid initial "gains" towards the goal of weight loss, but it still remains a sub-optimal strategy. Firstly, all things being equal, the fat-loss delta between low-carb and low fat diets disappears in 12 to 18 months. That delta is relevant because following long term low-carb, there remains a "no going back" threshold where the re-introduction of carbohydrates to a normal level will very likely lead to rapid fat gain. Secondly, just because your brain and muscles can use keytones doesn't mean that they "want" to. Glucose is always the "preferred" energy source. Mental acuity and muscular endurance suffer when glucose is not available. I'm thinking specifically of a twin study done in UK (I think) that tested that hypothesis and their results support it. Lastly, low-carb diets consequently tend to be high in fat-- of particular concern, saturated fat. Again, as stated previously, carb restriction has very rapid initial results, however long term adherence mortgages future cardiovascular health in pursuit of those results.

    It remains that in either strategy, neither the low carb lost weight (excess fat) solely because he was low carb. Nor did the low fat lose weight solely because low-fat, but because of a calorie deficit.

    Best bet for long term: fruits, vegetables, some whole grains here and there, and avoid high concentrations of simple sugars and saturated fats.

    This is where people who folllow low carb gurus are going to pay a heavy price.

    Well at least we know the inputs come from people who had not experienced the keto eating life style. :)

    While I did not go LCHF to lose weight the weight loss was an accident that took place. After keto cured my cravings the weight came off without having to count calories in my case.

    Plenty of people have tried low carb/keto and paid the piper
    https://www.facebook.com/180degreehealth/posts/1193989860629357

    That's an opinion piece, offering no citations, not only an opinion piece, but one intended to sell books. Do you have peer-reviewed studies that support the assertion that months or years of not eating carbs will cause "insomnia, low energy levels, depression, dry skin, constipation, sexual apathy, and so on?"

    Dude is selling books on how to raise your metabolic rate: http://www.amazon.com/Matt-Stone/e/B001KIM1IA/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=180degr-20

    There are numerous studies. One such is here: http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n3/full/pr200478a.html

    It comes from the fact that while our brains can function on ketones (And, often do at night), it's not the optimal fuel: Glucose is. Your brain can function suboptimally for a while, and ketone burning has some neuroprotective effect, especially during hypoxia. But, if you want optimal function, you need to provide optimal fuel.

    Ketosis also causes athletic performance to suffer. Initially, during the transition to ketosis adaptation, many individuals suffer from "keto flu", in which you feel like you have the flu, and all athletic performance tanks. Eventually, you return to "somewhat" normal performance, minus the sprinting capacity.

    So, for endurance athletes, looking to win races, ketosis is probably not the best idea. Yes, I know one marathon runner won a couple of marathons, and he does keto. I get it, one runner was able to pull it off. However, for most individuals, carb loading the day before is the way to go, and providing a more tuned macro set is advisable.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    Ketones are used by the brain and other parts of the body as a fuel when available, and uptake generally rises with concentration in the blood.

    Ketones co-exist with glucose, at least in the living. Keto dieters have fasting blood glucose levels similar to healthy carb eaters but their daily average or AUC will be lower. Even the therapeutic applications of keto aim for G/K ratios close to 1 but higher levels up to 10 are seen in dieters.

    There's some evidence that long term fasted keto - adapted people can run lower blood glucose without symptoms of hypoglycaemia.

    I'm not clear what the control mechanism is, but ketone production seems to require low levels of liver glycogen and reduced supply of competing substrates like protein / amino acids.
  • lisawinning4losinglisawinning4losing Posts: 732Member Member Posts: 732Member Member
    10 proven health benefits of low carb and ketogenic diets (with citations).

    https://authoritynutrition.com/10-benefits-of-low-carb-ketogenic-diets/

    For anyone who's curious. I've noticed that in the LCHF group, there are a lot of people who are there not just for weight loss but for medical reasons, who have had a lot of success. It's just one option that's available to people. It might not be right for everyone, but it works well for some.
    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.