Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How does the body fuel itself?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Lol, here in Oaxaca where I am living, they still eat bugs. Chapulines (grasshoppers) are a staple and all the natives are very excited that this week is the week for chicatanas, a large edible ant that is supposedly delicious. They only hatch over a few day period and there were a few out on the ground today. There are also a couple types of worms they eat.3 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
“The brain is fueled exclusively by glucose.”
Page one. Maybe you just hadn’t scrolled back that far?
Selective quote is selective"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."[/i]
You must have missed the part about alternate fuel sources in the absence of glucose.
Great so we are all in agreement then that statement that the brain exclusively uses glucose for fuel is false?
Because so far there’s been lots of deflecting from answering this question.
It's just as false as there being many low carb and keto athletes that thrive, while considering the population of athletes. That being, that might be one or two in a population of thousands of professional athletes.
I still have a few friends over at NAVSPECWARCEN and will ask the physicians if they ever considered the keto diet within any of the special operations schools.
Sure this will be taken very seriously...
Interestingly enough, that is some of the specialized work done by Dom D'Aginstino.
Interesting indeed. I'm quite serious about this - the special operations community is successful because of the quality of continually questioning everything and are always looking for the latest innovations. Why you find that the majority of modifications to sports medicine often originated within one of the teams.
The only counter is that you would never want to limit or restrict a viable food source. Adaptability is paramount.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Lol, here in Oaxaca where I am living, they still eat bugs. Chapulines (grasshoppers) are a staple and all the natives are very excited that this week is the week for chicatanas, a large edible ant that is supposedly delicious. They only hatch over a few day period and there were a few out on the ground today. There are also a couple types of worms they eat.
Sugar ants! Very tasty indeed - even better fermented. You can keep the worms...they all taste like dirt no matter how you prep them.2 -
I still have a few friends over at NAVSPECWARCEN and will ask the physicians if they ever considered the keto diet within any of the special operations schools.
Sure this will be taken very seriously...
A bit off topic and not offering a pro or con here regarding keto but it really might be an interesting discussion.
A bit of what interested me as an aside when 1st started researching keto was the ketogenic research/application being conducted by Dr. (PhD) Domenic D'Agostino and the US Navy regarding oxygen toxicity and US Navy Divers. Trying to find a way to eliminate seizures in the divers while in the depths of the ocean. I had an uncle (now deceased) who was last stationed at the Naval Diving Training Center in Panama City and was a Master Diver with the US Navy serving in Vietnam (which was the "connection" of interest). D'Agostino has several interviews on line mentioning this research as "how he became interested in the ketogenic diet".
Carry on...1 -
I still have a few friends over at NAVSPECWARCEN and will ask the physicians if they ever considered the keto diet within any of the special operations schools.
Sure this will be taken very seriously...
A bit off topic and not offering a pro or con here regarding keto but it really might be an interesting discussion.
A bit of what interested me as an aside when 1st started researching keto was the ketogenic research/application being conducted by Dr. (PhD) Domenic D'Agostino and the US Navy regarding oxygen toxicity and US Navy Divers. Trying to find a way to eliminate seizures in the divers while in the depths of the ocean. I had an uncle (now deceased) who was last stationed at the Naval Diving Training Center in Panama City and was a Master Diver with the US Navy serving in Vietnam (which was the "connection" of interest). D'Agostino has several interviews on line mentioning this research as "how he became interested in the ketogenic diet".
Carry on...
His interview with Layne Norton PhD, is what turned me onto his work. Its really interested.3 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
“The brain is fueled exclusively by glucose.”
Page one. Maybe you just hadn’t scrolled back that far?
Selective quote is selective"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."[/i]
You must have missed the part about alternate fuel sources in the absence of glucose.
Great so we are all in agreement then that statement that the brain exclusively uses glucose for fuel is false?
Because so far there’s been lots of deflecting from answering this question.
It's just as false as there being many low carb and keto athletes that thrive, while considering the population of athletes. That being, that might be one or two in a population of thousands of professional athletes.
Another great deflection. I hope your day job is in politics
It kind of is. But it's also recognizing that both sides make wild accusations. Both of which should concede some of their non valid points. The data on keto and sports shows significant variations in individual performance. So yes, while there are a few that can thrive on low carb or keto while playing some sports, it certainly isn't the major like those who carb load. Preferentially, athletes can benefit from training carb load and have periods of training with lower carbs. No different than one should lift and do cardio.
The data for LCHF really does show significant variations, it shows decreases in performance for high intensity athletes and an increase in performance for endurance athletes.
8 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
“The brain is fueled exclusively by glucose.”
Page one. Maybe you just hadn’t scrolled back that far?
Selective quote is selective"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."[/i]
You must have missed the part about alternate fuel sources in the absence of glucose.
Great so we are all in agreement then that statement that the brain exclusively uses glucose for fuel is false?
Because so far there’s been lots of deflecting from answering this question.
It's just as false as there being many low carb and keto athletes that thrive, while considering the population of athletes. That being, that might be one or two in a population of thousands of professional athletes.
Another great deflection. I hope your day job is in politics
It kind of is. But it's also recognizing that both sides make wild accusations. Both of which should concede some of their non valid points. The data on keto and sports shows significant variations in individual performance. So yes, while there are a few that can thrive on low carb or keto while playing some sports, it certainly isn't the major like those who carb load. Preferentially, athletes can benefit from training carb load and have periods of training with lower carbs. No different than one should lift and do cardio.
The data for LCHF really does show significant variations, it shows decreases in performance for high intensity athletes and an increase in performance for endurance athletes.
Do you have the studies? Were they on trained or untrained individuals? Did you compare individual performance or just the mean values? Or did you read it and take the interpretation at face value?
Here is one of the latest meta analyses on ketogenic performance.
https://sci-fit.net/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
So true. We adapt well.
And I agree, if there is easy access to carbs like berries, people usually ate them. Carbs are not new to humans, just agriculture is. Agricultural products, mainly grains, are a newer thing for humans and one that some need to be careful with - sort of like how some can't do dairy well based on their location and ancestors' foods.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
So true. We adapt well.
And I agree, if there is easy access to carbs like berries, people usually ate them. Carbs are not new to humans, just agriculture is. Agricultural products, mainly grains, are a newer thing for humans and one that some need to be careful with - sort of like how some can't do dairy well based on their location and ancestors' foods.
By newer do you mean 100,000 years? Grains are not one of the top allergies... Lactose, nuts and selfish should be of greater concern.8 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
“The brain is fueled exclusively by glucose.”
Page one. Maybe you just hadn’t scrolled back that far?
Selective quote is selective"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."[/i]
You must have missed the part about alternate fuel sources in the absence of glucose.
Great so we are all in agreement then that statement that the brain exclusively uses glucose for fuel is false?
Because so far there’s been lots of deflecting from answering this question.
It's just as false as there being many low carb and keto athletes that thrive, while considering the population of athletes. That being, that might be one or two in a population of thousands of professional athletes.
Another great deflection. I hope your day job is in politics
It kind of is. But it's also recognizing that both sides make wild accusations. Both of which should concede some of their non valid points. The data on keto and sports shows significant variations in individual performance. So yes, while there are a few that can thrive on low carb or keto while playing some sports, it certainly isn't the major like those who carb load. Preferentially, athletes can benefit from training carb load and have periods of training with lower carbs. No different than one should lift and do cardio.
The data for LCHF really does show significant variations, it shows decreases in performance for high intensity athletes and an increase in performance for endurance athletes.
Do you have the studies? Were they on trained or untrained individuals? Did you compare individual performance or just the mean values? Or did you read it and take the interpretation at face value?
Here is one of the latest meta analyses on ketogenic performance.
https://sci-fit.net/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/
The interesting quote is the 'growing popularity with endurance athletes'. Who knows they might be close enough soon to the figure we can refer to as many? Not sure anyone will ever defy the laws of physiology enough that we can start using the term 'exclusive'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29108901
13 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
“The brain is fueled exclusively by glucose.”
Page one. Maybe you just hadn’t scrolled back that far?
Selective quote is selective"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."[/i]
You must have missed the part about alternate fuel sources in the absence of glucose.
Great so we are all in agreement then that statement that the brain exclusively uses glucose for fuel is false?
Because so far there’s been lots of deflecting from answering this question.
It's just as false as there being many low carb and keto athletes that thrive, while considering the population of athletes. That being, that might be one or two in a population of thousands of professional athletes.
Another great deflection. I hope your day job is in politics
It kind of is. But it's also recognizing that both sides make wild accusations. Both of which should concede some of their non valid points. The data on keto and sports shows significant variations in individual performance. So yes, while there are a few that can thrive on low carb or keto while playing some sports, it certainly isn't the major like those who carb load. Preferentially, athletes can benefit from training carb load and have periods of training with lower carbs. No different than one should lift and do cardio.
The data for LCHF really does show significant variations, it shows decreases in performance for high intensity athletes and an increase in performance for endurance athletes.
Do you have the studies? Were they on trained or untrained individuals? Did you compare individual performance or just the mean values? Or did you read it and take the interpretation at face value?
Here is one of the latest meta analyses on ketogenic performance.
https://sci-fit.net/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/
The interesting quote is the 'growing popularity with endurance athletes'. Who knows they might be close enough soon to the figure we can refer to as many? Not sure anyone will ever defy the laws of physiology enough that we can start using the term 'exclusive'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29108901
All of the endurance athletes I've read about doing keto are not doing keto full time...they do keto for certain parts of their training protocol, just as they do some fasted training...they still carb load before races.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
So true. We adapt well.
And I agree, if there is easy access to carbs like berries, people usually ate them. Carbs are not new to humans, just agriculture is. Agricultural products, mainly grains, are a newer thing for humans and one that some need to be careful with - sort of like how some can't do dairy well based on their location and ancestors' foods.
By newer do you mean 100,000 years? Grains are not one of the top allergies... Lactose, nuts and selfish should be of greater concern.
I'm a celiac with Northern European ancestors ( some of who also had celiac). We got agriculture 3000-5000 years ago. Grains and my extended family (both sides) don't mix well. My guess is because it is fairly new to us. If I was of middle eastern or Mediterranean descent I might be be better adapted to agriculture.
9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
“The brain is fueled exclusively by glucose.”
Page one. Maybe you just hadn’t scrolled back that far?
Selective quote is selective"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."[/i]
You must have missed the part about alternate fuel sources in the absence of glucose.
Great so we are all in agreement then that statement that the brain exclusively uses glucose for fuel is false?
Because so far there’s been lots of deflecting from answering this question.
It's just as false as there being many low carb and keto athletes that thrive, while considering the population of athletes. That being, that might be one or two in a population of thousands of professional athletes.
Another great deflection. I hope your day job is in politics
It kind of is. But it's also recognizing that both sides make wild accusations. Both of which should concede some of their non valid points. The data on keto and sports shows significant variations in individual performance. So yes, while there are a few that can thrive on low carb or keto while playing some sports, it certainly isn't the major like those who carb load. Preferentially, athletes can benefit from training carb load and have periods of training with lower carbs. No different than one should lift and do cardio.
The data for LCHF really does show significant variations, it shows decreases in performance for high intensity athletes and an increase in performance for endurance athletes.
Do you have the studies? Were they on trained or untrained individuals? Did you compare individual performance or just the mean values? Or did you read it and take the interpretation at face value?
Here is one of the latest meta analyses on ketogenic performance.
https://sci-fit.net/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/
The interesting quote is the 'growing popularity with endurance athletes'. Who knows they might be close enough soon to the figure we can refer to as many? Not sure anyone will ever defy the laws of physiology enough that we can start using the term 'exclusive'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29108901
All of the endurance athletes I've read about doing keto are not doing keto full time...they do keto for certain parts of their training protocol, just as they do some fasted training...they still carb load before races.
yep that's my understanding too. But they structure their fueling (timings and quantities) that they still remain in ketosis or can easily re-enter ketosis.11 -
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
Fat and carbs are both primary fuels... fats are used more often when you are doing daily activities and oxygen requirements aren't as high; carbs when used more (either post meal) or when there are greater oxygen requirements.
But ketones are not a primary source of fuel (which I guess is the argument). Ketones are a derivative of starvation, very low carb and extreme endurance active (as glycogen gets depleted). In the event that a person doesn't consume enough glucose, a body will convert fatty acids (~40%) and amino acids (~60%) into glucose to address those basal needs; IIRC, things like the circulatory system, heart, and a few other organs require glucose and can't utilize ketones.
Like all humans, babies will produce ketones, especially over night. But most peoples get a good amount of carbs. Carbs are a huge driver for development. In a single serving of my daughters formula, it's 2g of protein, 5g of fat, 10g carbs. As you know carbs cause lipogenesis which unlocks the cells to take in nutrients.
CKD vs TKD, it would depend on how the person is using it. If they are merely timing nutrients around a workout, or an event, than it would be a TKD diet. But if they are incorporating refeeds to increase glycogen capacity, improve insulin sensitivity, and drive better recovery and muscle development, than it would be CKD. I guess I would have to read more about his diet to see which method is used. Because with endurance athletes, glycogen depletion will occur, especially since they aren't just running at one constant speed in the "fat burning" zone. There will be changes in terrain which will require greater oxygen, which driven glycogen needs (since carbs convert to ATP easier). And since glycogen can be replenished in about 24 hours (based on how often you consume carbs and if you eat the appropriate amount; generally 100 to 150g every few hours until you hit @ bw in kg * 16), it's no uncommon to see 2 to 3 days of refeed prior to the event, consumption of glucose/fructose and maybe some proteins prior to events.
I think we understand each other. We just don't agree with each other completely. We're both coming from our own biases.
I agree that glucose and fat are primary fuels for the body (whereas glucose and ketones are used by the brain). I still think it depends on what you are eating (or how many carbs) that will determine which fuel is primary for an individual. It makes sense to me. You give a body fats and it gets really good at using fats. Give a body glucose and it gets good at using glucose.
I think glucose is called the primary fuel simply because that's what most people use. It's just a term that people assumed is correct, IMO. Often the next sentence added to that is how the brain will be starved for fuel if you consume less than 130g of glucose a day. We know that isn't right.
Absolutely, the body has a basal glucose need. Almost everything can use fats or ketones (as it's main fuel) too except RBC's. And there are other fuels that get used too. The heart , like the brain, also has a great affinity for lactate.
As to the issues of babies, I was not referring to formula but breast milk. The carbs in breast milk are a fair bit lower than formula. I think it's a little over a third carbs, but because of where they are developmentally, it appears exclusively BF'ed babies are often mildly ketogenic.
For CKD and TKD, I am not really sure where most low carbers who use them do so. I was under the impression that TKD was more common fro endurance athletes' training. They don't deplete glycogen like the more explosive sporting athletes do. Ketogeinc athletes (without carb loading CKD or TKD) have the same glycogen stores and speed of replenishment as higher carb athletes - I assume from gluconeogenesis using dietary fat and protein. CKD seems more common among lifters
If you do look into it and find anything to share, please do so. I'm always curious. Same goes for muscle recovery. I've actually read the opposite that muscle recovery appears a bit faster/easier on a ketogeinc diet. Muscle gains appear easier when more carbs are involved, definitely, but muscle recovery benefitting from carbs when one is fat adapted is not something I've ever read.
What evidence do you have to support that keto is more beneficial for recovery? If you look at the evidence its quite the opposite. Its why you time carbs and protein around workouts. Not only are carbs anti catabolic, they support protein turnover and muscle rebuilding/building.
I have no studies book marked for you. I have seen some info on it, and listened to some talks but I can't remember my sources. Maybe I'll look later this evening and try to jog my memory.
I've heard plenty of anecdotal reports about it, among endurance athletes, but I know that's not what you want.
TBH, the only study I have ever seen that says a ketogenic diet makes exercise harder is some power walker study where the athletes were most likely not even fat adapted yet (3 weeks trial I think) and may not have addressed sodium needs.
I am pretty sure there is nothing definitive out there yet. Keto and athletics is too new. Fat adaption takes weeks to months. There are not a lot of athletes out the who are fat adapted yet. The numbers are growing but it is still a tiny minority. Getting good research will take more time.
On a different topic,
Up thread it was sort of implied that carb loading somehow cancels out the fact that someone eats ketogenic the rest of the time. TKD and CKD are still ketogenic diets. They rely on fats and ketones for most of their fuel most of the time. That's a ketogeic diet.
It would be sort of like saying because someone eats twinkles and Doritos a few times a week, that they follow a junk food diet even though the rest of their food is quite nutritious and not highly processed.
And I'm another fan of Dom D'Agostino. Really interesting research.8 -
Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
8 -
Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).7 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.15 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
12 weeks makes sense. That’s the time period used in the New Zealand study I posted earlier.
10 -
I still have a few friends over at NAVSPECWARCEN and will ask the physicians if they ever considered the keto diet within any of the special operations schools.
Sure this will be taken very seriously...
A bit off topic and not offering a pro or con here regarding keto but it really might be an interesting discussion.
A bit of what interested me as an aside when 1st started researching keto was the ketogenic research/application being conducted by Dr. (PhD) Domenic D'Agostino and the US Navy regarding oxygen toxicity and US Navy Divers. Trying to find a way to eliminate seizures in the divers while in the depths of the ocean. I had an uncle (now deceased) who was last stationed at the Naval Diving Training Center in Panama City and was a Master Diver with the US Navy serving in Vietnam (which was the "connection" of interest). D'Agostino has several interviews on line mentioning this research as "how he became interested in the ketogenic diet".
Carry on...
His interview with Layne Norton PhD, is what turned me onto his work. Its really interested.
Yes, I happened to see that one. I'm not sure if it is because I stalk D'Agostino
or because I subscribe to Biolayne (out of general interest) and a notification popped up on my computer. D'Agostino's research is interesting. 0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions