Disadvantages of Keto diet

17891113

Replies

  • viren19890
    viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
    I'd like to ask a question-might not be directly related but-did any of you read animal food labels?

    They only mention Crude Protein, Crude fat , Fiber content and then micros

    Talking about dogs and cats here. Most good brands have all protein and fats. That's it some of them have whole grains as well but people say cats thrive on non-grain oriented brands.

    Any co-relation or conclusion that could be derived from their way of eating ?
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    Cats are obligate carnivores, so grains are really not good for them. Dogs are omnivorous, buuuuut, their diet would have been predominantly meat until we domesticated them. Don't know that there is any conclusion to draw from that wrt humans.

    Better to compare us to other primates, knowing that the only thing that differentiates us is the inclusion of animal products in our diet. We have a bipedal pelvis, but large brains. In order to survive childbirth, we are born grotesquely premature as compared to other primates. We require a dietary source of cholesterol in order to develop our terribly underdeveloped brains and nervous systems (a full term baby's brain at birth is 25% the size of an adult's brain, by age 2 it is 75%, and by age 5 it is 90%). Cholesterol is found exclusively in animal products (there are NO plant sources). Human breastmilk is a rich source of cholesterol, but children begin the weaning process between 4-6 months of age, and it is usually competed well before age 6 (when the liver finally reaches maturity), in the western world weaning is often completed before or around age 1. We need a dietary source of cholesterol as babies and young children. I have a hard time believing that we evolved to need a radically different diet as children than what we need as adults. Just my $0.02
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    viren19890 wrote: »
    I'd like to ask a question-might not be directly related but-did any of you read animal food labels?

    They only mention Crude Protein, Crude fat , Fiber content and then micros

    Talking about dogs and cats here. Most good brands have all protein and fats. That's it some of them have whole grains as well but people say cats thrive on non-grain oriented brands.

    Any co-relation or conclusion that could be derived from their way of eating ?

    I don't give my dog and cat any grains. If i give them dry food then it's the grain free varieties. Grains, wheat, rice, corn are only added to pet foods as a cheap filler. This is sooo way off topic though lol tflag explained the differences.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,992 Member
    edited July 2016
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    But who said those anabolic hormones are reduced to a level where they are not effective? IGF-1 may go down somewhat but the brain's receptors of IGF-1 increases so are the benefits actually lost?

    Insulin levels between a diet with adequate carbs (moderate) and LCHF are not actually that different. It's just the source of glucose that is (diet or liver).

    From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340 again:

    "Plasma glucose and serum insulin were not significantly different between groups at rest and during exercise but increased during the last hour of recovery in the HC athletes, likely due to the greater amount of carbohydrate in the shake (Fig. 5A and B). There was no significant difference between groups in insulin resistance as determined by HOMA. Serum lactate responses were variable, but were significantly higher in LC athletes during the last hour of exercise (Fig. 5C)."

    A higher carb diet, or right after a carby meal, there will be more insulin.

    IDK. I guess each person must decide what risks to take. More insulin and IGF-1 for greater muscle gains but it does come with the risk of what higher levels of those hormones may lead to. For people already at risk for those health problems (IR or cancer - often the overweight people) maximizng muscle gains may with higher anabolic hormones may not be their best choice.

    But then you think they can't gain muscle if they don't take that risk...
    Link me a study that shows that testosterone ISN'T reduced on a ketogenic diet. I've haven't seen one that doesn't show this happen. Lower testosterone ends up in catabolism, not anabolism.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Link me a study that shows testosterone is reduced in a negative way.
    In this study, the researchers divided their subjects into 2 groups. The other group ate a high-carb low-protein diet, whereas the other group ate a high-protein low-carb diet. Fat intake and calories were identical. Ten days into the study, the results showed that the high-carb group had significantly higher free testosterone levels (+36%), lower SHBG levels, and lower cortisol levels when compared to the high-protein low-carb group.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976
    In this study, the researchers found out that in exercising men, the stress hormone cortisol increases rapidly when they’re put on low-carb diets. Needless to say that this is pretty bad thing for testosterone production.http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

    Those are interesting but not definitive when it comes to a low carb high fat ketogenic diet.
    Not definitive? In every study testosterone is lowered when carbs are reduced or omitted. Combine this with the previous studies of mTOR, IGF-1, etc. being disrupted by keto diets and you're still not believing that muscle building isn't likely?
    Some the links are dealing with high protein or high carb diets. Not LCHF. It may be relevant but it may not.
    Carbs are DIRECTLY related to testosterone production. Lack of it lowers it. Lower testosterone results in less muscle hypertrophy. That's not debated by physiology or endocrinology.
    Other links had high levels of carbs still (such as 60% carbs as a control an 30% carbs considered to be low carb). At that level there will be no noticeable ketosis except while fasting during sleep. Their test subjects would still be relying on glucose for all fuel. Dietary glucose was reduced but that might just stress a person's body if there is no other fuel, I imagine.

    They were also very short 3 day tests. Not much time to adapt, so it was mainly looking at the time of adjustment. It takes a few days to adjust to a ketogenic diet and the use of alternate energy to help fuel the brain... and that won't happen on a moderate carb diet anyways.

    I went looking into alternate fuels to drive those pathways and this got into it a bit.

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing: making ends meet

    Nutrients Other than Glucose

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons also respond to other nutrient-related signals in addition to glucose. Within the VMH, there is overlap between GE and GI neurons and neurons whose activity is altered by free fatty acids and ketones (Wang et al., 2005; Le Foll et al., 2013, 2014). Neuronal fatty acid sensing is consistent with data showing that central fatty acid infusion modulates glucose-induced insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity (Cruciani-Guglielmacci et al., 2004; Migrenne et al., 2006; Marsollier et al., 2009; Le Foll et al., 2013). In contrast to glucose and fatty acids, direct evidence of amino acid sensing neurons has been elusive. Administration of the branched chain amino acid L-leucine, but not valine, into the third ventricle decreases food intake; an effect which appears to be mediated by the hypothalamic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (Cota et al., 2006). The mTOR inhibitor rapamycin restores NO production by VMH GI neurons during hyperglycemia suggesting potential overlap in glucose and amino acid sensing pathways in these neurons (Canabal et al., 2007a). Moreover, Blouet et al. demonstrated that direct application of leucine increased the action potential frequency of POMC neurons (Blouet et al., 2009). Taken together these data support the hypothesis that hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons integrate multiple nutrient signals; however this has yet to be definitely shown for amino acids.


    It goes on to discus alternate fuel sources:

    "...When liver glycogen is depleted, muscle catabolism is initially necessary to provide amino acids as substrates for gluconeogenesis. Muscle catabolism is clearly detrimental in the long term and after several days of starvation, increased conversion of fatty acids to ketones in the liver provides fuel to the brain and spares lean body mass (Straub et al., 2010). It seems likely that glucose sensing neurons, particularly GI neurons, are important for informing the brain of the potential magnitude of a threat to the brain energy supply during starvation and aiding in energy mobilization.

    In support of this, in general the hormonal changes which occur during fasting (e.g., reduced leptin and increased ghrelin) activate GI neurons and/or enhance their activation by decreased glucose (Cai et al., 1999; López et al., 2000; Diano et al., 2003; Kohno et al., 2003, 2008; Yamanaka et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2009b; Sheng et al., 2014)....
    "

    I looks like some of these pathways could be ketone driven but it hasn't been looked into too deeply. Regardless, the finctions of the brain that do need glucose would get that from gluconeogenesis. The liver does not just make the bare minimum. It pumps out glucose as needed, and can even pump out some excess amounts.

    To me, it seems you are arguing the need to have (eat) excess glucose in order to gain muscle as compared to adequate glucose (possibly due to gluconeogenesis or a low to modeate carb diet). People in ketosis still have glucose. They still have insulin, GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Perhaps not as much as a carb loading person. Not an excessive amount. Is excess needed? I'd say no. Might it be helpful? Sure.

    I know of a few low carbers who lift heavy. They are strong and muscley. I realize I won't be able to convince you that muscle gains can occur on a fat and protein diet, just like you won't be able to convince me that muscle gains can't occur. To me it feels like I am being told dogs don't exist while I sit next to my dog. Perhaps you feel the same way since you work at helping people grow muscles in as efficient manner as possible. A ketogenic diet may not be it (although I would hope you would consider LCHF for those you help with insulin resistance). Anyways, I do appreciate you looking at it. It's been an interesting discussion.

    Hormones (unless the organ secreting them is dysfunctional) will always be there yes. But lifestyle and diet DIRECTLY affect efficiency. Every link I posted supports that. Your stance is that because they are just present, you anecdotally believe that muscle building is still effectively possible. I liken it to have a full sink of oily dishes, a basin of water and having enough dish washing liquid to effectively wash the dishes. Reduce the amount of dish washing liquid significantly, and that's not going to happen. You'd be able to rinse the dishes, but they wouldn't effectively be cleaned. What I've stated, with evidence to support and back it up, along with direct experience (I've done keto many times for 12-16 weeks at a time for contest prep), I can emphatically say that keto diets aren't effective for muscle building.


    Not definitive... yes. A 3 day ketogenic diet? A 30% carb "low carb" diet?

    Yes, low carb lowers testosterone in women with PCOS. I haven't seen that a ketogenic diet lowers testosterone in men. Or maybe I overlooked your link on ketogenic diets lowering men's testosterone? If so, apologies. Perhaps you could post it again?

    And your stance is that because adequate levels of hormones are present (during a very LCHF diet) that muscle building can not take place? The hormones need to be elevated for muscle building to occur?

    As for your anecdote, I don't see it that way. Excess carbs is like excess soap. Do you really need that many bubbles? ;)

    There was another thread discussing low carb today. One poster, @Danny_Boy13 brought up his succesful gains in just a short period of time eating LCHF starting on page 4 or 5. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10426373/low-carb-does-work#latest Muscle gains are possible on a very low carb diet. It may not be the most effective way to gain muscle, but it works just fine. Saying muscle gains are impossible on a LCHF diet is simply not correct.

    We aren't going to agree on this...
    You having not seen testosterone lowering in men is anecdotal though. A ketogenic diet is basically devoid of carbs, and even along with your link, you can see that testosterone levels go down. How are you disputing against the initial links of hormones and signal pathways being inefficient for muscle building in the peer reviewed studies?
    And Dannyboy used an Inbody machine for measuring. I am VERY FAMILIAR with it since we use it at our gym. Accuracy level, not that reliable because it's still using bio imepedance. Any changes in water in the body change the percentages easily.
    And yes, incorrect hormone amounts disrupt the muscle building process. If you don't think that HOW MUCH hormone matters, then explain insulin? In fact, if leptin and ghrelin are just "there", shouldn't every one be lean if how much is secreted doesn't matter?
    Now is building significant muscle on keto possible? Nothing is impossible. Improbable, yes. I'll stick with the actual science and feel free to link something more credible then anecdotes when you find them.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited July 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    But who said those anabolic hormones are reduced to a level where they are not effective? IGF-1 may go down somewhat but the brain's receptors of IGF-1 increases so are the benefits actually lost?

    Insulin levels between a diet with adequate carbs (moderate) and LCHF are not actually that different. It's just the source of glucose that is (diet or liver).

    From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340 again:

    "Plasma glucose and serum insulin were not significantly different between groups at rest and during exercise but increased during the last hour of recovery in the HC athletes, likely due to the greater amount of carbohydrate in the shake (Fig. 5A and B). There was no significant difference between groups in insulin resistance as determined by HOMA. Serum lactate responses were variable, but were significantly higher in LC athletes during the last hour of exercise (Fig. 5C)."

    A higher carb diet, or right after a carby meal, there will be more insulin.

    IDK. I guess each person must decide what risks to take. More insulin and IGF-1 for greater muscle gains but it does come with the risk of what higher levels of those hormones may lead to. For people already at risk for those health problems (IR or cancer - often the overweight people) maximizng muscle gains may with higher anabolic hormones may not be their best choice.

    But then you think they can't gain muscle if they don't take that risk...
    Link me a study that shows that testosterone ISN'T reduced on a ketogenic diet. I've haven't seen one that doesn't show this happen. Lower testosterone ends up in catabolism, not anabolism.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Link me a study that shows testosterone is reduced in a negative way.
    In this study, the researchers divided their subjects into 2 groups. The other group ate a high-carb low-protein diet, whereas the other group ate a high-protein low-carb diet. Fat intake and calories were identical. Ten days into the study, the results showed that the high-carb group had significantly higher free testosterone levels (+36%), lower SHBG levels, and lower cortisol levels when compared to the high-protein low-carb group.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976
    In this study, the researchers found out that in exercising men, the stress hormone cortisol increases rapidly when they’re put on low-carb diets. Needless to say that this is pretty bad thing for testosterone production.http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

    Those are interesting but not definitive when it comes to a low carb high fat ketogenic diet.
    Not definitive? In every study testosterone is lowered when carbs are reduced or omitted. Combine this with the previous studies of mTOR, IGF-1, etc. being disrupted by keto diets and you're still not believing that muscle building isn't likely?
    Some the links are dealing with high protein or high carb diets. Not LCHF. It may be relevant but it may not.
    Carbs are DIRECTLY related to testosterone production. Lack of it lowers it. Lower testosterone results in less muscle hypertrophy. That's not debated by physiology or endocrinology.
    Other links had high levels of carbs still (such as 60% carbs as a control an 30% carbs considered to be low carb). At that level there will be no noticeable ketosis except while fasting during sleep. Their test subjects would still be relying on glucose for all fuel. Dietary glucose was reduced but that might just stress a person's body if there is no other fuel, I imagine.

    They were also very short 3 day tests. Not much time to adapt, so it was mainly looking at the time of adjustment. It takes a few days to adjust to a ketogenic diet and the use of alternate energy to help fuel the brain... and that won't happen on a moderate carb diet anyways.

    I went looking into alternate fuels to drive those pathways and this got into it a bit.

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing: making ends meet

    Nutrients Other than Glucose

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons also respond to other nutrient-related signals in addition to glucose. Within the VMH, there is overlap between GE and GI neurons and neurons whose activity is altered by free fatty acids and ketones (Wang et al., 2005; Le Foll et al., 2013, 2014). Neuronal fatty acid sensing is consistent with data showing that central fatty acid infusion modulates glucose-induced insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity (Cruciani-Guglielmacci et al., 2004; Migrenne et al., 2006; Marsollier et al., 2009; Le Foll et al., 2013). In contrast to glucose and fatty acids, direct evidence of amino acid sensing neurons has been elusive. Administration of the branched chain amino acid L-leucine, but not valine, into the third ventricle decreases food intake; an effect which appears to be mediated by the hypothalamic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (Cota et al., 2006). The mTOR inhibitor rapamycin restores NO production by VMH GI neurons during hyperglycemia suggesting potential overlap in glucose and amino acid sensing pathways in these neurons (Canabal et al., 2007a). Moreover, Blouet et al. demonstrated that direct application of leucine increased the action potential frequency of POMC neurons (Blouet et al., 2009). Taken together these data support the hypothesis that hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons integrate multiple nutrient signals; however this has yet to be definitely shown for amino acids.


    It goes on to discus alternate fuel sources:

    "...When liver glycogen is depleted, muscle catabolism is initially necessary to provide amino acids as substrates for gluconeogenesis. Muscle catabolism is clearly detrimental in the long term and after several days of starvation, increased conversion of fatty acids to ketones in the liver provides fuel to the brain and spares lean body mass (Straub et al., 2010). It seems likely that glucose sensing neurons, particularly GI neurons, are important for informing the brain of the potential magnitude of a threat to the brain energy supply during starvation and aiding in energy mobilization.

    In support of this, in general the hormonal changes which occur during fasting (e.g., reduced leptin and increased ghrelin) activate GI neurons and/or enhance their activation by decreased glucose (Cai et al., 1999; López et al., 2000; Diano et al., 2003; Kohno et al., 2003, 2008; Yamanaka et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2009b; Sheng et al., 2014)....
    "

    I looks like some of these pathways could be ketone driven but it hasn't been looked into too deeply. Regardless, the finctions of the brain that do need glucose would get that from gluconeogenesis. The liver does not just make the bare minimum. It pumps out glucose as needed, and can even pump out some excess amounts.

    To me, it seems you are arguing the need to have (eat) excess glucose in order to gain muscle as compared to adequate glucose (possibly due to gluconeogenesis or a low to modeate carb diet). People in ketosis still have glucose. They still have insulin, GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Perhaps not as much as a carb loading person. Not an excessive amount. Is excess needed? I'd say no. Might it be helpful? Sure.

    I know of a few low carbers who lift heavy. They are strong and muscley. I realize I won't be able to convince you that muscle gains can occur on a fat and protein diet, just like you won't be able to convince me that muscle gains can't occur. To me it feels like I am being told dogs don't exist while I sit next to my dog. Perhaps you feel the same way since you work at helping people grow muscles in as efficient manner as possible. A ketogenic diet may not be it (although I would hope you would consider LCHF for those you help with insulin resistance). Anyways, I do appreciate you looking at it. It's been an interesting discussion.

    Hormones (unless the organ secreting them is dysfunctional) will always be there yes. But lifestyle and diet DIRECTLY affect efficiency. Every link I posted supports that. Your stance is that because they are just present, you anecdotally believe that muscle building is still effectively possible. I liken it to have a full sink of oily dishes, a basin of water and having enough dish washing liquid to effectively wash the dishes. Reduce the amount of dish washing liquid significantly, and that's not going to happen. You'd be able to rinse the dishes, but they wouldn't effectively be cleaned. What I've stated, with evidence to support and back it up, along with direct experience (I've done keto many times for 12-16 weeks at a time for contest prep), I can emphatically say that keto diets aren't effective for muscle building.


    Not definitive... yes. A 3 day ketogenic diet? A 30% carb "low carb" diet?

    Yes, low carb lowers testosterone in women with PCOS. I haven't seen that a ketogenic diet lowers testosterone in men. Or maybe I overlooked your link on ketogenic diets lowering men's testosterone? If so, apologies. Perhaps you could post it again?

    And your stance is that because adequate levels of hormones are present (during a very LCHF diet) that muscle building can not take place? The hormones need to be elevated for muscle building to occur?

    As for your anecdote, I don't see it that way. Excess carbs is like excess soap. Do you really need that many bubbles? ;)

    There was another thread discussing low carb today. One poster, @Danny_Boy13 brought up his succesful gains in just a short period of time eating LCHF starting on page 4 or 5. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10426373/low-carb-does-work#latest Muscle gains are possible on a very low carb diet. It may not be the most effective way to gain muscle, but it works just fine. Saying muscle gains are impossible on a LCHF diet is simply not correct.

    We aren't going to agree on this...
    You having not seen testosterone lowering in men is anecdotal though. A ketogenic diet is basically devoid of carbs, and even along with your link, you can see that testosterone levels go down. How are you disputing against the initial links of hormones and signal pathways being inefficient for muscle building in the peer reviewed studies?
    And Dannyboy used an Inbody machine for measuring. I am VERY FAMILIAR with it since we use it at our gym. Accuracy level, not that reliable because it's still using bio imepedance. Any changes in water in the body change the percentages easily.
    And yes, incorrect hormone amounts disrupt the muscle building process. If you don't think that HOW MUCH matters, then explain insulin?
    Now is building significant muscle on keto possible? Nothing is impossible. Improbable, yes. I'll stick with the actual science and feel free to link something more credible then anecdotes when you find them.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    I don't see where testosterone goes down. Honest. You had a couple links where it went down in the first three days while the subjects were adjusting to a low carb diet. You had another where GnRH goes down but I have read where the receptors are more active when carbs are cut. I'm missing it.

    And I never said those pathways are inefficient for building muscle. I did think I agreed that a high carb diet may help people build muscle better or faster. I am arguing with the initial denial you made that muscle gains could not be made on a ketogenic diet. Now you are saying significant muscle gains on keto could be possible. (I'll ignore the improbabl.) That was my point. It can be done. People are doing it even without preconceived ideal hormone amounts (like high insulin).

  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited July 2016
    Wow my takeaway on all of this ... don't do a ketosis based diet if you are trying to build muscle unless you enjoy having a very complex diet. :dizzy:
  • Shadowmf023
    Shadowmf023 Posts: 812 Member
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,992 Member
    edited July 2016
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    But who said those anabolic hormones are reduced to a level where they are not effective? IGF-1 may go down somewhat but the brain's receptors of IGF-1 increases so are the benefits actually lost?

    Insulin levels between a diet with adequate carbs (moderate) and LCHF are not actually that different. It's just the source of glucose that is (diet or liver).

    From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340 again:

    "Plasma glucose and serum insulin were not significantly different between groups at rest and during exercise but increased during the last hour of recovery in the HC athletes, likely due to the greater amount of carbohydrate in the shake (Fig. 5A and B). There was no significant difference between groups in insulin resistance as determined by HOMA. Serum lactate responses were variable, but were significantly higher in LC athletes during the last hour of exercise (Fig. 5C)."

    A higher carb diet, or right after a carby meal, there will be more insulin.

    IDK. I guess each person must decide what risks to take. More insulin and IGF-1 for greater muscle gains but it does come with the risk of what higher levels of those hormones may lead to. For people already at risk for those health problems (IR or cancer - often the overweight people) maximizng muscle gains may with higher anabolic hormones may not be their best choice.

    But then you think they can't gain muscle if they don't take that risk...
    Link me a study that shows that testosterone ISN'T reduced on a ketogenic diet. I've haven't seen one that doesn't show this happen. Lower testosterone ends up in catabolism, not anabolism.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Link me a study that shows testosterone is reduced in a negative way.
    In this study, the researchers divided their subjects into 2 groups. The other group ate a high-carb low-protein diet, whereas the other group ate a high-protein low-carb diet. Fat intake and calories were identical. Ten days into the study, the results showed that the high-carb group had significantly higher free testosterone levels (+36%), lower SHBG levels, and lower cortisol levels when compared to the high-protein low-carb group.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976
    In this study, the researchers found out that in exercising men, the stress hormone cortisol increases rapidly when they’re put on low-carb diets. Needless to say that this is pretty bad thing for testosterone production.http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

    Those are interesting but not definitive when it comes to a low carb high fat ketogenic diet.
    Not definitive? In every study testosterone is lowered when carbs are reduced or omitted. Combine this with the previous studies of mTOR, IGF-1, etc. being disrupted by keto diets and you're still not believing that muscle building isn't likely?
    Some the links are dealing with high protein or high carb diets. Not LCHF. It may be relevant but it may not.
    Carbs are DIRECTLY related to testosterone production. Lack of it lowers it. Lower testosterone results in less muscle hypertrophy. That's not debated by physiology or endocrinology.
    Other links had high levels of carbs still (such as 60% carbs as a control an 30% carbs considered to be low carb). At that level there will be no noticeable ketosis except while fasting during sleep. Their test subjects would still be relying on glucose for all fuel. Dietary glucose was reduced but that might just stress a person's body if there is no other fuel, I imagine.

    They were also very short 3 day tests. Not much time to adapt, so it was mainly looking at the time of adjustment. It takes a few days to adjust to a ketogenic diet and the use of alternate energy to help fuel the brain... and that won't happen on a moderate carb diet anyways.

    I went looking into alternate fuels to drive those pathways and this got into it a bit.

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing: making ends meet

    Nutrients Other than Glucose

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons also respond to other nutrient-related signals in addition to glucose. Within the VMH, there is overlap between GE and GI neurons and neurons whose activity is altered by free fatty acids and ketones (Wang et al., 2005; Le Foll et al., 2013, 2014). Neuronal fatty acid sensing is consistent with data showing that central fatty acid infusion modulates glucose-induced insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity (Cruciani-Guglielmacci et al., 2004; Migrenne et al., 2006; Marsollier et al., 2009; Le Foll et al., 2013). In contrast to glucose and fatty acids, direct evidence of amino acid sensing neurons has been elusive. Administration of the branched chain amino acid L-leucine, but not valine, into the third ventricle decreases food intake; an effect which appears to be mediated by the hypothalamic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (Cota et al., 2006). The mTOR inhibitor rapamycin restores NO production by VMH GI neurons during hyperglycemia suggesting potential overlap in glucose and amino acid sensing pathways in these neurons (Canabal et al., 2007a). Moreover, Blouet et al. demonstrated that direct application of leucine increased the action potential frequency of POMC neurons (Blouet et al., 2009). Taken together these data support the hypothesis that hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons integrate multiple nutrient signals; however this has yet to be definitely shown for amino acids.


    It goes on to discus alternate fuel sources:

    "...When liver glycogen is depleted, muscle catabolism is initially necessary to provide amino acids as substrates for gluconeogenesis. Muscle catabolism is clearly detrimental in the long term and after several days of starvation, increased conversion of fatty acids to ketones in the liver provides fuel to the brain and spares lean body mass (Straub et al., 2010). It seems likely that glucose sensing neurons, particularly GI neurons, are important for informing the brain of the potential magnitude of a threat to the brain energy supply during starvation and aiding in energy mobilization.

    In support of this, in general the hormonal changes which occur during fasting (e.g., reduced leptin and increased ghrelin) activate GI neurons and/or enhance their activation by decreased glucose (Cai et al., 1999; López et al., 2000; Diano et al., 2003; Kohno et al., 2003, 2008; Yamanaka et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2009b; Sheng et al., 2014)....
    "

    I looks like some of these pathways could be ketone driven but it hasn't been looked into too deeply. Regardless, the finctions of the brain that do need glucose would get that from gluconeogenesis. The liver does not just make the bare minimum. It pumps out glucose as needed, and can even pump out some excess amounts.

    To me, it seems you are arguing the need to have (eat) excess glucose in order to gain muscle as compared to adequate glucose (possibly due to gluconeogenesis or a low to modeate carb diet). People in ketosis still have glucose. They still have insulin, GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Perhaps not as much as a carb loading person. Not an excessive amount. Is excess needed? I'd say no. Might it be helpful? Sure.

    I know of a few low carbers who lift heavy. They are strong and muscley. I realize I won't be able to convince you that muscle gains can occur on a fat and protein diet, just like you won't be able to convince me that muscle gains can't occur. To me it feels like I am being told dogs don't exist while I sit next to my dog. Perhaps you feel the same way since you work at helping people grow muscles in as efficient manner as possible. A ketogenic diet may not be it (although I would hope you would consider LCHF for those you help with insulin resistance). Anyways, I do appreciate you looking at it. It's been an interesting discussion.

    Hormones (unless the organ secreting them is dysfunctional) will always be there yes. But lifestyle and diet DIRECTLY affect efficiency. Every link I posted supports that. Your stance is that because they are just present, you anecdotally believe that muscle building is still effectively possible. I liken it to have a full sink of oily dishes, a basin of water and having enough dish washing liquid to effectively wash the dishes. Reduce the amount of dish washing liquid significantly, and that's not going to happen. You'd be able to rinse the dishes, but they wouldn't effectively be cleaned. What I've stated, with evidence to support and back it up, along with direct experience (I've done keto many times for 12-16 weeks at a time for contest prep), I can emphatically say that keto diets aren't effective for muscle building.


    Not definitive... yes. A 3 day ketogenic diet? A 30% carb "low carb" diet?

    Yes, low carb lowers testosterone in women with PCOS. I haven't seen that a ketogenic diet lowers testosterone in men. Or maybe I overlooked your link on ketogenic diets lowering men's testosterone? If so, apologies. Perhaps you could post it again?

    And your stance is that because adequate levels of hormones are present (during a very LCHF diet) that muscle building can not take place? The hormones need to be elevated for muscle building to occur?

    As for your anecdote, I don't see it that way. Excess carbs is like excess soap. Do you really need that many bubbles? ;)

    There was another thread discussing low carb today. One poster, @Danny_Boy13 brought up his succesful gains in just a short period of time eating LCHF starting on page 4 or 5. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10426373/low-carb-does-work#latest Muscle gains are possible on a very low carb diet. It may not be the most effective way to gain muscle, but it works just fine. Saying muscle gains are impossible on a LCHF diet is simply not correct.

    We aren't going to agree on this...
    You having not seen testosterone lowering in men is anecdotal though. A ketogenic diet is basically devoid of carbs, and even along with your link, you can see that testosterone levels go down. How are you disputing against the initial links of hormones and signal pathways being inefficient for muscle building in the peer reviewed studies?
    And Dannyboy used an Inbody machine for measuring. I am VERY FAMILIAR with it since we use it at our gym. Accuracy level, not that reliable because it's still using bio imepedance. Any changes in water in the body change the percentages easily.
    And yes, incorrect hormone amounts disrupt the muscle building process. If you don't think that HOW MUCH matters, then explain insulin?
    Now is building significant muscle on keto possible? Nothing is impossible. Improbable, yes. I'll stick with the actual science and feel free to link something more credible then anecdotes when you find them.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    I don't see where testosterone goes down. Honest. You had a couple links where it went down in the first three days while the subjects were adjusting to a low carb diet. You had another where GnRH goes down but I have read where the receptors are more active when carbs are cut. I'm missing it.

    And I never said those pathways are inefficient for building muscle. I did think I agreed that a high carb diet may help people build muscle better or faster. I am arguing with the initial denial you made that muscle gains could not be made on a ketogenic diet. Now you are saying significant muscle gains on keto could be possible. (I'll ignore the improbabl.) That was my point. It can be done. People are doing it even without preconceived ideal hormone amounts (like high insulin).
    Significant meaning visually. Could one possibly build .05lbs of muscle in a year on keto? I can't say no to that, but .05lbs ISN'T significant in a year's worth of work. There isn't any debate that muscle hypertrophy happens without a few things: high enough protein to build it, enough calories to support mass gain, progressive overload resistance training, and hormones to provide protein synthesis for Satellite cells to increase myofibrillar thickness.
    I can't say it how many times, but the initial link I posted shows studies of how the keto diet affects how hormones and signal pathways AREN'T activated to promote protein synthesis. It's there in black and white, so I don't know why you're choosing to ignore it.
    And let's clarify: I DO NOT believe keto diet (based on scientific evidence) builds any significant muscle. You seem to think it happens without any evidence except anecdotal ones.
    And please, if you're going to spout off about hormones, again answer the question I've been asking since you just believe that the presence of a hormone is enough: does the LEVEL of any hormone in the body matter in how the body metabolizes macronutrients? Because if it doesn't matter we should be all lean and thin whether we overeat or not.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png



  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.

    Do you even math? 10% carbs is only 100 grams or more if you are eating at least 4000 calories
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.

    Do you even math? 10% carbs is only 100 grams or more if you are eating at least 4000 calories

    That would be a lot of damned rock climbing.
  • BarbellzNBrotein
    BarbellzNBrotein Posts: 306 Member
    I've yet to meet someone in the real world who has found this method of eating sustainable.
  • healthymom76
    healthymom76 Posts: 99 Member
    it is amazing to me that everyone thinks that a strict calorie deficeit will work for everyone....well it doesn't Did that for over 6 months and lost nothing...went to several doctors and 2 different dietians and logged everything...they pretty much gave up on me....some people don't do with with carbs..like me...doing keto now and have never felt better more energy....more mental clarity... and I am losing weight finally...weight loss is not a simple one size fits all thing.....
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited July 2016
    dykask wrote: »
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.

    Do you even math? 10% carbs is only 100 grams or more if you are eating at least 4000 calories

    You should try rock climbing, it is really intense. :wink: But actually I was thinking of cooked rice when I made my calculation ... but more than 1/2 the weight is water. Point taken.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    I am on LCHF and have body analysis done every 6 weeks by my bariatric endocrinologist. I have gained about 4 oz of muscle since April and have lost 21 lbs of fat. My LCHF diet is not ultra low-carb. 50-60g per day, plus adequate protein. I exercise 5 days a week and incorporate strength training.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited July 2016
    I am on LCHF and have body analysis done every 6 weeks by my bariatric endocrinologist. I have gained about 4 oz of muscle since April and have lost 21 lbs of fat. My LCHF diet is not ultra low-carb. 50-60g per day, plus adequate protein. I exercise 5 days a week and incorporate strength training.

    I'm not on a LCHF diet, but it has also been my experience that I can slowly build muscle mass while losing fat. However, it is really slow compared to muscle gain while bulking. My main concern is just not to lose muscle mass. Be prepared, there will probably be attacks on your statement.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    I am on LCHF and have body analysis done every 6 weeks by my bariatric endocrinologist. I have gained about 4 oz of muscle since April and have lost 21 lbs of fat. My LCHF diet is not ultra low-carb. 50-60g per day, plus adequate protein. I exercise 5 days a week and incorporate strength training.

    4 oz of muscle? The only way to measure body composition with that degree of accuracy is vivisection.
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    edited July 2016

    I am on LCHF and have body analysis done every 6 weeks by my bariatric endocrinologist. I have gained about 4 oz of muscle since April and have lost 21 lbs of fat. My LCHF diet is not ultra low-carb. 50-60g per day, plus adequate protein. I exercise 5 days a week and incorporate strength training.

    I just started keto on Monday. I had carb cravings for about 3 days but yesterday I experienced the appetite blunting (on Thursday all day). I had no problem cutting calories. I'm so excited! I'm not hungry. :)

    People who are involved with exercise can do TDK (targeted keto diet) where they eat carbs before and after working out.

    I think I will start with 20g carbs net and see if I can work up to 40-50g a day. Karen your 50g carbs are net after subtracting fiber, right?

  • viren19890
    viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
    it is amazing to me that everyone thinks that a strict calorie deficeit will work for everyone....well it doesn't Did that for over 6 months and lost nothing...went to several doctors and 2 different dietians and logged everything...they pretty much gave up on me....some people don't do with with carbs..like me...doing keto now and have never felt better more energy....more mental clarity... and I am losing weight finally...weight loss is not a simple one size fits all thing.....

    lol ok. Carb vs non-carb group -at least agree on one thing which is -for weight loss deficit is needed.

    If you eat copious amount of calories regardless of coming from fat/protein/carbs -you will gain weight.

    Deficit in calories is indisputable for weight loss. That remains constant.

    It might have been that turning to fats from carbs automatically reduced your calories and weight started coming off.
  • tech_kitten
    tech_kitten Posts: 221 Member
    I do IF, and that seems to work well for me. I lost a bunch of weight with keto before, but I LOOOOVE carby foods, so I gained it all back plus some. IF helps me keep my calories down for the day without depriving myself of entire food groups. IF isn't for everyone either. You kind of have to find whatever works best for you and your lifestyle.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.

    Do you even math? 10% carbs is only 100 grams or more if you are eating at least 4000 calories

    You should try rock climbing, it is really intense. :wink: But actually I was thinking of cooked rice when I made my calculation ... but more than 1/2 the weight is water. Point taken.

    So, as long as it contains carbs it's okay to call the whole weight carbs?

    I had an apple, 120 grams of carbs!
  • healthymom76
    healthymom76 Posts: 99 Member
    Nope I was eating the same amount of calories with carbs vs non carbs.... 1500 cals a day with carbs no weight loss .... 1500 cals a day with very low carbs I have started to lose weight....something to be said that it isn't a one size fits all kind of thing whcich actually makes sense since peoples bodies aren't all the same....
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,992 Member
    Nope I was eating the same amount of calories with carbs vs non carbs.... 1500 cals a day with carbs no weight loss .... 1500 cals a day with very low carbs I have started to lose weight....something to be said that it isn't a one size fits all kind of thing whcich actually makes sense since peoples bodies aren't all the same....
    Initially because of glycogen reduction in the cells, weight loss is from water loss to a pretty large extent. It will level off after that though.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.

    Do you even math? 10% carbs is only 100 grams or more if you are eating at least 4000 calories

    You should try rock climbing, it is really intense. :wink: But actually I was thinking of cooked rice when I made my calculation ... but more than 1/2 the weight is water. Point taken.


    ? What does rice have to do with anything?

    If you are getting 10% of calories from carbs, and are eating, say 2400 cal per day, that's 240 calories from carbs. 1 g of carb has appx 4 calories, so 240/4= 60. On a 2400 cal per day diet, getting 10% of calories from carbs would give you 60 g of carbs per day. And very little room for rice lol (1/4 c uncooked rice is over 35 g of carbs... Better to eat a whole bunch of fibrous veggies and seeds and low sugar fruit, rather than waste half your carb allowance on one measley serving of rice).
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited July 2016
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Well, I don't know the science. All I know is my sister's boyfriend eats a LCHF diet around (10% carbs). He's been eating that way for 3 years, in which he lost 30lb. After which he used to be quite thin in the pictures I saw him. Not terribly so, but he was a little "flabby".

    His favourite hobby is rock climbing, which he does 3 times a week. He's quite muscular now.

    10% carbs though is probably 100 grams or more. That is something to work with.

    Do you even math? 10% carbs is only 100 grams or more if you are eating at least 4000 calories

    You should try rock climbing, it is really intense. :wink: But actually I was thinking of cooked rice when I made my calculation ... but more than 1/2 the weight is water. Point taken.

    So, as long as it contains carbs it's okay to call the whole weight carbs?

    I had an apple, 120 grams of carbs!

    I already admitted I made a mistake ... You like kicking people when they are down? Low carbs must bring out the aggression in people!
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited July 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    But who said those anabolic hormones are reduced to a level where they are not effective? IGF-1 may go down somewhat but the brain's receptors of IGF-1 increases so are the benefits actually lost?

    Insulin levels between a diet with adequate carbs (moderate) and LCHF are not actually that different. It's just the source of glucose that is (diet or liver).

    From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340 again:

    "Plasma glucose and serum insulin were not significantly different between groups at rest and during exercise but increased during the last hour of recovery in the HC athletes, likely due to the greater amount of carbohydrate in the shake (Fig. 5A and B). There was no significant difference between groups in insulin resistance as determined by HOMA. Serum lactate responses were variable, but were significantly higher in LC athletes during the last hour of exercise (Fig. 5C)."

    A higher carb diet, or right after a carby meal, there will be more insulin.

    IDK. I guess each person must decide what risks to take. More insulin and IGF-1 for greater muscle gains but it does come with the risk of what higher levels of those hormones may lead to. For people already at risk for those health problems (IR or cancer - often the overweight people) maximizng muscle gains may with higher anabolic hormones may not be their best choice.

    But then you think they can't gain muscle if they don't take that risk...
    Link me a study that shows that testosterone ISN'T reduced on a ketogenic diet. I've haven't seen one that doesn't show this happen. Lower testosterone ends up in catabolism, not anabolism.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Link me a study that shows testosterone is reduced in a negative way.
    In this study, the researchers divided their subjects into 2 groups. The other group ate a high-carb low-protein diet, whereas the other group ate a high-protein low-carb diet. Fat intake and calories were identical. Ten days into the study, the results showed that the high-carb group had significantly higher free testosterone levels (+36%), lower SHBG levels, and lower cortisol levels when compared to the high-protein low-carb group.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976
    In this study, the researchers found out that in exercising men, the stress hormone cortisol increases rapidly when they’re put on low-carb diets. Needless to say that this is pretty bad thing for testosterone production.http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365
    Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is the hormone that basically starts the whole cascade of events that eventually leads to testosterone synthesis, adjusts its pulsation rate according to the glucose levels of the body. When there’s high amount of glucose present, the hypothalamus inside our brains releases more GnRH, and thus your body synthesizes more testosterone. And when there’s low amounts of glucose present in the body, the brain releases less GnRH, which slows down testosterone synthesis (study).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

    Those are interesting but not definitive when it comes to a low carb high fat ketogenic diet.
    Not definitive? In every study testosterone is lowered when carbs are reduced or omitted. Combine this with the previous studies of mTOR, IGF-1, etc. being disrupted by keto diets and you're still not believing that muscle building isn't likely?
    Some the links are dealing with high protein or high carb diets. Not LCHF. It may be relevant but it may not.
    Carbs are DIRECTLY related to testosterone production. Lack of it lowers it. Lower testosterone results in less muscle hypertrophy. That's not debated by physiology or endocrinology.
    Other links had high levels of carbs still (such as 60% carbs as a control an 30% carbs considered to be low carb). At that level there will be no noticeable ketosis except while fasting during sleep. Their test subjects would still be relying on glucose for all fuel. Dietary glucose was reduced but that might just stress a person's body if there is no other fuel, I imagine.

    They were also very short 3 day tests. Not much time to adapt, so it was mainly looking at the time of adjustment. It takes a few days to adjust to a ketogenic diet and the use of alternate energy to help fuel the brain... and that won't happen on a moderate carb diet anyways.

    I went looking into alternate fuels to drive those pathways and this got into it a bit.

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing: making ends meet

    Nutrients Other than Glucose

    Hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons also respond to other nutrient-related signals in addition to glucose. Within the VMH, there is overlap between GE and GI neurons and neurons whose activity is altered by free fatty acids and ketones (Wang et al., 2005; Le Foll et al., 2013, 2014). Neuronal fatty acid sensing is consistent with data showing that central fatty acid infusion modulates glucose-induced insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity (Cruciani-Guglielmacci et al., 2004; Migrenne et al., 2006; Marsollier et al., 2009; Le Foll et al., 2013). In contrast to glucose and fatty acids, direct evidence of amino acid sensing neurons has been elusive. Administration of the branched chain amino acid L-leucine, but not valine, into the third ventricle decreases food intake; an effect which appears to be mediated by the hypothalamic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (Cota et al., 2006). The mTOR inhibitor rapamycin restores NO production by VMH GI neurons during hyperglycemia suggesting potential overlap in glucose and amino acid sensing pathways in these neurons (Canabal et al., 2007a). Moreover, Blouet et al. demonstrated that direct application of leucine increased the action potential frequency of POMC neurons (Blouet et al., 2009). Taken together these data support the hypothesis that hypothalamic glucose sensing neurons integrate multiple nutrient signals; however this has yet to be definitely shown for amino acids.


    It goes on to discus alternate fuel sources:

    "...When liver glycogen is depleted, muscle catabolism is initially necessary to provide amino acids as substrates for gluconeogenesis. Muscle catabolism is clearly detrimental in the long term and after several days of starvation, increased conversion of fatty acids to ketones in the liver provides fuel to the brain and spares lean body mass (Straub et al., 2010). It seems likely that glucose sensing neurons, particularly GI neurons, are important for informing the brain of the potential magnitude of a threat to the brain energy supply during starvation and aiding in energy mobilization.

    In support of this, in general the hormonal changes which occur during fasting (e.g., reduced leptin and increased ghrelin) activate GI neurons and/or enhance their activation by decreased glucose (Cai et al., 1999; López et al., 2000; Diano et al., 2003; Kohno et al., 2003, 2008; Yamanaka et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2009b; Sheng et al., 2014)....
    "

    I looks like some of these pathways could be ketone driven but it hasn't been looked into too deeply. Regardless, the finctions of the brain that do need glucose would get that from gluconeogenesis. The liver does not just make the bare minimum. It pumps out glucose as needed, and can even pump out some excess amounts.

    To me, it seems you are arguing the need to have (eat) excess glucose in order to gain muscle as compared to adequate glucose (possibly due to gluconeogenesis or a low to modeate carb diet). People in ketosis still have glucose. They still have insulin, GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Perhaps not as much as a carb loading person. Not an excessive amount. Is excess needed? I'd say no. Might it be helpful? Sure.

    I know of a few low carbers who lift heavy. They are strong and muscley. I realize I won't be able to convince you that muscle gains can occur on a fat and protein diet, just like you won't be able to convince me that muscle gains can't occur. To me it feels like I am being told dogs don't exist while I sit next to my dog. Perhaps you feel the same way since you work at helping people grow muscles in as efficient manner as possible. A ketogenic diet may not be it (although I would hope you would consider LCHF for those you help with insulin resistance). Anyways, I do appreciate you looking at it. It's been an interesting discussion.

    Hormones (unless the organ secreting them is dysfunctional) will always be there yes. But lifestyle and diet DIRECTLY affect efficiency. Every link I posted supports that. Your stance is that because they are just present, you anecdotally believe that muscle building is still effectively possible. I liken it to have a full sink of oily dishes, a basin of water and having enough dish washing liquid to effectively wash the dishes. Reduce the amount of dish washing liquid significantly, and that's not going to happen. You'd be able to rinse the dishes, but they wouldn't effectively be cleaned. What I've stated, with evidence to support and back it up, along with direct experience (I've done keto many times for 12-16 weeks at a time for contest prep), I can emphatically say that keto diets aren't effective for muscle building.


    Not definitive... yes. A 3 day ketogenic diet? A 30% carb "low carb" diet?

    Yes, low carb lowers testosterone in women with PCOS. I haven't seen that a ketogenic diet lowers testosterone in men. Or maybe I overlooked your link on ketogenic diets lowering men's testosterone? If so, apologies. Perhaps you could post it again?

    And your stance is that because adequate levels of hormones are present (during a very LCHF diet) that muscle building can not take place? The hormones need to be elevated for muscle building to occur?

    As for your anecdote, I don't see it that way. Excess carbs is like excess soap. Do you really need that many bubbles? ;)

    There was another thread discussing low carb today. One poster, @Danny_Boy13 brought up his succesful gains in just a short period of time eating LCHF starting on page 4 or 5. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10426373/low-carb-does-work#latest Muscle gains are possible on a very low carb diet. It may not be the most effective way to gain muscle, but it works just fine. Saying muscle gains are impossible on a LCHF diet is simply not correct.

    We aren't going to agree on this...
    You having not seen testosterone lowering in men is anecdotal though. A ketogenic diet is basically devoid of carbs, and even along with your link, you can see that testosterone levels go down. How are you disputing against the initial links of hormones and signal pathways being inefficient for muscle building in the peer reviewed studies?
    And Dannyboy used an Inbody machine for measuring. I am VERY FAMILIAR with it since we use it at our gym. Accuracy level, not that reliable because it's still using bio imepedance. Any changes in water in the body change the percentages easily.
    And yes, incorrect hormone amounts disrupt the muscle building process. If you don't think that HOW MUCH matters, then explain insulin?
    Now is building significant muscle on keto possible? Nothing is impossible. Improbable, yes. I'll stick with the actual science and feel free to link something more credible then anecdotes when you find them.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    I don't see where testosterone goes down. Honest. You had a couple links where it went down in the first three days while the subjects were adjusting to a low carb diet. You had another where GnRH goes down but I have read where the receptors are more active when carbs are cut. I'm missing it.

    And I never said those pathways are inefficient for building muscle. I did think I agreed that a high carb diet may help people build muscle better or faster. I am arguing with the initial denial you made that muscle gains could not be made on a ketogenic diet. Now you are saying significant muscle gains on keto could be possible. (I'll ignore the improbabl.) That was my point. It can be done. People are doing it even without preconceived ideal hormone amounts (like high insulin).
    Significant meaning visually. Could one possibly build .05lbs of muscle in a year on keto? I can't say no to that, but .05lbs ISN'T significant in a year's worth of work. There isn't any debate that muscle hypertrophy happens without a few things: high enough protein to build it, enough calories to support mass gain, progressive overload resistance training, and hormones to provide protein synthesis for Satellite cells to increase myofibrillar thickness.
    I can't say it how many times, but the initial link I posted shows studies of how the keto diet affects how hormones and signal pathways AREN'T activated to promote protein synthesis. It's there in black and white, so I don't know why you're choosing to ignore it.
    And let's clarify: I DO NOT believe keto diet (based on scientific evidence) builds any significant muscle. You seem to think it happens without any evidence except anecdotal ones.
    And please, if you're going to spout off about hormones, again answer the question I've been asking since you just believe that the presence of a hormone is enough: does the LEVEL of any hormone in the body matter in how the body metabolizes macronutrients? Because if it doesn't matter we should be all lean and thin whether we overeat or not.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition


    I never said keto was faster for muscle building. Ever. I just said it can be done. Don't worry. Your carb loading is number 1 position is not being disputed. No need to defend that.

    Those pathways you are talking about are not shut off on a ketogenic diet. That would imply I have made no insulin, testosterone, IGF-1, or GH for the past 14 months because I ate below 20g of carbs per day for most of that time. It just isn't true.

    In some people (like with testosterone in a woman with PCOS) the hormone production might be slowed. It isn't suddenly stopped when carbs are not eaten. Hormone uptake can increased on a LCHF diet. Sensitivity may be increased. Alternate fuel (ketones) can be used to signal some pathways.... It isn't full stop. Black or white.

    And yes, I am going with anecdotal evidence because there are no scientific peer reviewed studies on keto and body building. None. Nutritional ketogenic diets are just starting to gain in popularity. Myths surrounding it are slowly being debunked; we now know that keto adapted endurance athletes have higher VO2max, fat oxidation; lower lactate levels; and that muscle glycogen use and repletion patterns are the same for both the LCHF and higher carb athletes. Oh wait.... performance between the two groups were similar. I wonder how those long term keto adapted athletes got and mainatained those muscles?

    I thought I adressed the hormone levels needed for muscle. Yes, hormone levels matter. But how many bubbles do you need to wash your dishes?

    Concerning the bolded, this was your initial link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976 There is NOTHING about ketosis in this. Nothing. I don't see anything about hormones being tured off either.

    Nothing here either. http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v78/n5/full/icb200076a.html Or here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855365 Or here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182
    This one gets close but it is a three day study. If they were eating at keto levels they were just starting to make ketones. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8495690

    If it is there, I am missing it.
  • healthymom76
    healthymom76 Posts: 99 Member
    Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Not a troll at all... I just find it humorous that people who do low carb are willing to admit that there might be more than one way to lose weight while those that don't agree with low carb are adament about CICO being the only thing that matters........WRONG..peoples bodies don't all work the same what about those that are insulin resistant..what about those with PCOS Like I said 1500 cals with carbs and walking no weight loss for over 3 months.....1500 cals with low carbs and walking the same amount weight loss....at least for me CICO isn't accurate....I think I will believe what my own body tells me over people on here who are all about CICO....you should be more open minded that there are different way to lose weight and that not the same thing will work for everyone....Bye!

    You don't know what CICO means, do you.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    edited July 2016
    I am on LCHF and have body analysis done every 6 weeks by my bariatric endocrinologist. I have gained about 4 oz of muscle since April and have lost 21 lbs of fat. My LCHF diet is not ultra low-carb. 50-60g per day, plus adequate protein. I exercise 5 days a week and incorporate strength training.

    4 oz of muscle? The only way to measure body composition with that degree of accuracy is vivisection.

    You are probably correct, although not kind in the way you word your response. There is undoubtedly some margin of error, but my doctor is board certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and nonsurgical bariatrics and has sophisticated means of measuring body composition. Whether I have gained a few ounces or lost a few ounces of muscle is neither here nor there. The point is that I am managing to preserve muscle, for the most part, while losing fat. I am proud of that and there is no need to ridicule my progress.

    Edited to correct typo.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    I am on LCHF and have body analysis done every 6 weeks by my bariatric endocrinologist. I have gained about 4 oz of muscle since April and have lost 21 lbs of fat. My LCHF diet is not ultra low-carb. 50-60g per day, plus adequate protein. I exercise 5 days a week and incorporate strength training.

    4 oz of muscle? The only way to measure body composition with that degree of accuracy is vivisection.

    You are probably correct, although not kind in the way you word your response. There is undoubtedly some margin of error, but my doctor is board certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and nonsurgical bariatrics and has sophisticated means of measuring body composition. Whether I have gained a few ounces or lost a few ounces of muscle is neither here nor there. The point is that I am managing to preserve muscle, for the most part, while losing fat. I am proud of that and there is no need to ridicule my progress.

    Edited to correct typo.

    Not sure why the wording bothered you. The only way to measure to that level of accuracy would be through autopsy. That's just a fact. Since you are alive and hopefully won't be dead anytime soon...:. a vivisection would literally be the only way to measure that small of a gain with any reasonable accuracy.