Ketosis...good or bad??

I was constantly exhausted when I did this. It felt horrible.

Good if you are in a caloric deficit and want to lose weight/fat without exercising and have low daily activity
Bad if you exercise and have an active lifestlye
By ketosis, I am thinking around 30g or less carbohydrates per day, ketones in the urine, glycogen stores are depleted...it's just not enough to provide someone with readily usable energy for activity

yup.

only okay if you're sedentary. and if you're not (if you're active/if you work out), i HIGHLY recommend carbing more than once every 7- 10 days, to keep you OUT of ketosis. when I'm tryin to cut weight, I carb cycle every 3rd or 4th day. and even on my "low-carb" days, my net carbs are still between 30 and 60g.

Good if you are in a caloric deficit and want to lose weight/fat without exercising and have low daily activity
Bad if you exercise and have an active lifestlye
By ketosis, I am thinking around 30g or less carbohydrates per day, ketones in the urine, glycogen stores are depleted...it's just not enough to provide someone with readily usable energy for activity

yup.

only okay if you're sedentary. and if you're not (if you're active/if you work out), i HIGHLY recommend carbing more than once every 7- 10 days, to keep you OUT of ketosis. when I'm tryin to cut weight, I carb cycle every 3rd or 4th day. and even on my "low-carb" days, my net carbs are still between 30 and 60g.

Why do you think it is bad though? Which is the impression I get from your reply?

it is very important to replenish glycogen after totally depleting it from your muscles. although protein is the building material for muscle, without any glycogen, protein becomes the source for fuel (catabolism). high levels of cortisol is associated with catabolism which obstructs the rebuilding of muscle protein by diverting its amino acid building blocks to the liver. because protein is an important structural element of muscles, catabolism leaves the muscles in a weakened state afterward. so, you're unable to build/strengthen, and rather, you break your muscles down.

protein and fat do get converted to glucose, just at a slower rate than carbs. when you're glycogen level is zero and you're demanding a lot of your muscles, to avoid catabolism, you need a carbohydrate refeed. and if you're regularly demanding a significant amount of energy from your muscles, then by staying in ketosis, you're doing nothing but harm and increasing your chances of not being able to keep the weight off (and probably gain more back) once you come out of ketosis.

Sobriquet84...so how long do you think it is `safe` to follow a ketosis state?

Have you tried it or are you just going from what you have read or heard??

I am really interested to know from practical experience also :-)))

yes, i've tried it.

it was a part of an eating disorder i had several years ago that lasted a couple years. i lost a lot of weight, and actually landed in the hospital due to severe kidney infections, and that's when i knew something had to change. i gained weight back FAST, even with small adjustments, and then some, and it took a solid 5 years for my metabolism and my body to recover. i was eating about 1,000 calories a day, at about 15g net carbs a day.

through those 2 years that i was depriving and destroying myself, i studied everything i could about the science behind and different theories on how to get my body fat percentage as low as i could. i learned how to lose fat and KEEP it off after experiencing the devistating effects of what i did to myself.

If your consuming very high amounts of protein, then your probably not in ketosis.........moderate protein and high fat translates into ketosis.

Ketosis causes you to burn lean muscle tissue for fuel. You only burn fat when there is carbohydrate present. DO NOT cut your carbs out! Even diabetics should have about 50% of their diet from Carbs. They are your main energy source. Protein, if eaten in large amounts, can cause gall stones, kidney stones and other ailments. Carbs=energy and fat burning...Protein=stabilized blood sugar and repair...Fat=fuller longer and decreased LDL production. The % of each depends on the amount of exercise you do and your goals.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :noway: :noway: :noway:

Ketosis causes you to burn lean muscle tissue for fuel. You only burn fat when there is carbohydrate present. DO NOT cut your carbs out! Even diabetics should have about 50% of their diet from Carbs. They are your main energy source. Protein, if eaten in large amounts, can cause gall stones, kidney stones and other ailments. Carbs=energy and fat burning...Protein=stabilized blood sugar and repair...Fat=fuller longer and decreased LDL production. The % of each depends on the amount of exercise you do and your goals.

Where to begin...

it is very important to replenish glycogen after totally depleting it from your muscles. although protein is the building material for muscle, without any glycogen, protein becomes the source for fuel (catabolism). high levels of cortisol is associated with catabolism which obstructs the rebuilding of muscle protein by diverting its amino acid building blocks to the liver. because protein is an important structural element of muscles, catabolism leaves the muscles in a weakened state afterward. so, you're unable to build/strengthen, and rather, you break your muscles down.

I really don't think you understand low carb diets as well as you let on. The notion that your body will burn protein for fuel on a low carb diet rather than fat, leading to your body catabolizing your muscles, is simply incorrect. A low carb diet can be as muscle sparing as a standard IIFYM diet, provided you're hitting your protein macro and doing resistance training. Your body will not break down your muscles simply because your muscle glycogen stores are depleted. Some people may find they feel lethargic when this happens but that is not the same as catabolism. I know many people that continue lifting while eating a low carb diet and find it to be a good option for sparing lean body mass.

protein and fat do get converted to glucose, just at a slower rate than carbs. when you're glycogen level is zero and you're demanding a lot of your muscles, to avoid catabolism, you need a carbohydrate refeed. and if you're regularly demanding a significant amount of energy from your muscles, then by staying in ketosis, you're doing nothing but harm and increasing your chances of not being able to keep the weight off (and probably gain more back) once you come out of ketosis.

Fat gets converted into glucose? Really? You may want to double check that one. As for protein, while it's possible for your body to convert protein into glucose, it's not a particular efficient process and whether this happens as a practical matter is another story. But again, your suggestion that you will lose muscle simply because you're on a low carb diet is absolutely wrong.

I'm not going to say a low carb diet is right for everyone. It's not. But please, let's not sit here and spread misinformation like "you'll lose all your muscle if you eat low carb!"

Fat gets converted into glucose? Really? You may want to double check that one. As for protein, while it's possible for your body to convert protein into glucose, it's not a particular efficient process and whether this happens as a practical matter is another story.

an interesting story too - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.long looked specifically at this - gluconeogenesis in a high protein, high fat very low carb diet with a control and crossover of a 55% carb 12% protein "standard" diet.

EGP was lower in the H condition than in the N condition (181 ± 9 compared with 226 ± 9 g/d; P < 0.001), whereas fractional gluconeogenesis was higher (0.95 ± 0.04 compared with 0.64 ± 0.03; P < 0.001) and absolute gluconeogenesis tended to be higher (171 ± 10 compared with 145 ± 10 g/d; P = 0.06) in the H condition than in the N condition. EE (resting metabolic rate) was greater in the H condition than in the N condition (8.46 ± 0.23 compared with 8.12 ± 0.31 MJ/d; P < 0.05).

EGP = Endogenous glucose production, H = high protein / fat diet, N = "normal" lower protein diet.

Endogenous glucose production, ie, glucose derived from glycogenolysis and from gluconeogenesis, was lower on the high protein / high fat diet by 45 g/day.

Energy measurements confirmed the inefficiency of the process but an extra 26 g/day on average of glucose production by gluconeogenesis was measured, offsetting the large reduction in glycogenolysis.

Glycerol and fatty acids from adipose tissue are a substrate for gluconeogenesis, so do get converted to glucose -

Fat gets converted into glucose? Really? You may want to double check that one. As for protein, while it's possible for your body to convert protein into glucose, it's not a particular efficient process and whether this happens as a practical matter is another story.

an interesting story too - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.long looked specifically at this - gluconeogenesis in a high protein, high fat very low carb diet with a control and crossover of a 55% carb 12% protein "standard" diet.

EGP was lower in the H condition than in the N condition (181 ± 9 compared with 226 ± 9 g/d; P < 0.001), whereas fractional gluconeogenesis was higher (0.95 ± 0.04 compared with 0.64 ± 0.03; P < 0.001) and absolute gluconeogenesis tended to be higher (171 ± 10 compared with 145 ± 10 g/d; P = 0.06) in the H condition than in the N condition. EE (resting metabolic rate) was greater in the H condition than in the N condition (8.46 ± 0.23 compared with 8.12 ± 0.31 MJ/d; P < 0.05).

EGP = Endogenous glucose production, H = high protein / fat diet, N = "normal" lower protein diet.

Endogenous glucose production, ie, glucose derived from glycogenolysis and from gluconeogenesis, was lower on the high protein / high fat diet by 45 g/day.

Energy measurements confirmed the inefficiency of the process but an extra 26 g/day on average of glucose production by gluconeogenesis was measured, offsetting the large reduction in glycogenolysis.

Glycerol and fatty acids from adipose tissue are a substrate for gluconeogenesis, so do get converted to glucose -

The energy required for that conversion is very high, pretty much making the conversion inconsequential, I believe.....lol. Or at least I couldn't find any source that showed anything different, but it's been a few years since I've looked. Basically, i think you'll find that while it does happen, it's miniscule for purposes of usable energy.

I did it for about 8 months. It was ok, it got me lean but I wasn't as strong, I missed carbs and eating out or at friends etc can become problematic. Now back eating carbs (and plenty of em) and I'm much happier and stronger. To each their own though!

The energy required for that conversion is very high, pretty much making the conversion inconsequential, I believe.....lol. Or at least I couldn't find any source that showed anything different, but it's been a few years since I've looked. Basically, i think you'll find that while it does happen, it's miniscule for purposes of usable energy.

The paper quoted the extent of it and how much extra energy it used.

It is only necessary for production of glucose of course, and our demand for that isn't massive. The extra 26 g/day of glucose is only 100 calories so it is indeed not going to set the world alight.

The overall balance is interesting in http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519/T4.expansion.html on the high protein / high fat diet protein was accumulating whereas in the SAD type diet protein was being depleted - the opposite of much conventional wisdom around low carb diets causing protein / muscle loss.

Like the previous study shows that when carbs are reduced the Acetyl CoA pathway is in full swing for conversion, so I'm not sure if it's just more efficient overall, and on the other hand other factors that inhibit conversion like methylglyoxal are higher. Anyway, it's interesting to know that for people that do ketogenic diets that the fat is also supplying some glucose for cell respiration and brain function.