JeffHaber wrote: »

kpk54 wrote: »

How was your diet prior to eating ketogenic? I didn't experience an observable energy boost when initiating ketogenic but I had a decent whole foods diet prior to.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if you want to experience a difference, spend a day or two eating cakes, cookies, pies, brownies, ice cream, cheetoes, doritoes, ect. See how bad/lethargic you feel then clean your diet up and notice the change...the energy boost.

It could be that keto isn't that great but rather the opposite way of eating is that bad. So unless you were "the opposite" you don't feel the difference. Make sense.

If you're losing weight to the tune of 5 pounds a month and do not want to be losing simply add in some calories. Keto is satiating so those with effective hunger cues, eat less somewhat "naturally". Perhaps you're not quite as energized because you're eating a 625 calorie per day deficit. Are you tracking your intake?

My experience is that keto doesn't provide bouncing off the wall energy. It provides a stable energy level throughout the day eliminating the need for an afternoon caffeine jolt or nap to "reboot". Stable BG.

Thanks... The weight loss is good too, but I was more curious to see if burning Keytones was better than Glucose. Sounded plausible enough to test. Previously, the things you mentioned- cupcakes and Ice-cream did make it into the house every week or two.

So it sounds like 30 days is enough time?

There's a misconception about keto that a lot of people seem to get wrong, but it's not their fault since a lot of the more known talking heads of lchf tend to not understand the biochemistry.

Firstly, a ketogenic diet is any diet that is a result of more acetyl co-A than oxaloacetate, usually easiest produced when hepatic (liver) glycogen is depleted and a portion of oxidized free fatty acids (FFAs) AKA "fat burning" becomes metabolized into ketone bodies as a result of an incomplete TCA cycle.

Secondly, "keto-adaptation" is when the organs and tissues have down regulated the glycolytic pathways in preference for switching the fuel substrate over to fatty acids. During this period,there is the usual drop in perceived energy levels AKA "keto flu" and takes about 3 weeks.. after that is the transition to temporarily using ketones and FFAs as fuel, resulting in a "spike" in energy. In reality, you're coming from a state of feeling like crap back to normal, so it feels like a bump up in energy.

Thirdly, once the entire system becomes efficient in utilizing fatty acids as fuel, ketones and glucose are spared primarily for the brain. The muscles and organs no longer rely on 2 fuels, and now just rely on fatty acids for fuel. So, once you are fully "fat adapted" which can take months, no one is using ketones as fuel for activity. It's primarly FFAs and glucose in the context where you're performing intense glycolytic activity that requires muscle glycogen to be used. The rate of fat burning is slow, which is why most slow-moderate steady state aerobic activity is 'fat burning.' Intense weight lifting uses glycogen and ATP depending on the intensity level.

In the end, ketogenesis is a survival tool that our bodies have in place to prevent dying in cases of emergency and starvation. Being the smart human beings we are, we decided to "bio-hack" a survival trait and turn it into a diet that can be marketed. Not that it's not effective for myriad of metabolic/neurological problems; e.g. insulin resistance, diabetes, PCOS, epilepsy, etc. in fact, it's quite effective at addressing those issues, but in context, no one is, or should be, perpetually ketotic for life. There's just not a need to "survive" in a world where abundance has become the result of our own health problems.

The way I see it, those who do suffer from those metabolic/neuro issues and benefit from lower carbs, should follow a LC diet for the most part to manage those symptoms. As well as following diet preference. EVERYONE should prioritize protein, I don't care what diet you follow. Whether fat or carbs should be the higher macro after that is complete preference for fat loss, as long as you're in an energy deficit you will lose fat. If you have an issue that thrives much better on lower carb, then do that. If you don't have any metabolic issues and do better on lower fat, then follow that.

Some people temporarily use a LC diet to get their diet and metabolic issues in check, and once they've learned to adhere to a diet based on mostly whole food sources, then they can go back to whatever macro suits their preference, since I'd much rather tell someone to stick to a diet they can successfully follow than spitefully force their way through a restrictive diet if it leads to secret binges and "falling off the wagon."

I do agree with many of the fitness industry leaders that carbs should probably follow activity levels. If you're absolutely sedentary or have limited mobility, you don't need carbs. If you're a type A hyperactive fitpro, then you probably don't suffer from insulin resistance in the first place, or if you do it's because you've probably taken IIFYM to an asinine level of hedonism, but you might perform better with carbs.

#Context is king, so do what you enjoy and can adhere to. I just didn't want anyone to think this was a miracle diet that cures everything under the sun.