Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach => Topic started by: SteakNchop on December 22, 2010, 11:47:57 am
-
I accidentally had some sugar. (don't ask how) I am wondering how much it would have had to be to kind of un-keto-adapt?
-
how?
-
I wonder about these things too. I think this is a really good question. I know most days my carb levels are never above that 30g (which I believe is the first number given) but some days I guess i've gone over that pretty much intentionally. I never notice much of a shift, other than if the carbs come from fruits which will cause their own spikes and negative effects so its hard to determine how it effects my energy or whatever just by nature of being over. Some folks like Hannibal claim you can get into a larger range and still be adapted more or less whereas I think some other folks like Lex might be more 'conservative' on that angle and also I believe suggests the adaption can take more like 18 months anyway! Perhaps I shouldn't speak for other people. I know theres such a thing as 'cycling' (for those that are already adapted I assume) so the change from a single lapse must not be that severe I would assume. Did you fall out of a plane and land in a pile of sugar?
-
Well, I don't think I had too much. Maybe like 20 or something carbs worth. I doubt I keto-adapted (though not sure if I ever have I guess) but if I did, will I have carb flu all over again? Or should I just go back to stuffing myself with meat and I'll be fine. I'm a little worried that my metabolism might have shifted and if I go straight back to eating like 6000 calories of meat a day I'll gain a bit of weight.
-
Some folks like Hannibal claim you can get into a larger range and still be adapted more or less whereas
Yes.
Ketonuria is different from ketonemia.
One can eat 100 g of carbs and have ketonemia.
I think some other folks like Lex might be more 'conservative' on that angle and also I believe suggests the adaption can take more like 18 months anyway!
That's definitely not true.
It's about several weeks, like on this pic -
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/501933/brain_fuel.png
Ketones fuel the brain in 3/4, so it's a complete adaptation.
-
So it is a couple of weeks. Great. I am just wondering if my 20-30 carbs of pure sugar not accompanied by anything would knock me out of a keto typle metabolism.
-
Are babies in ketonemia or ketonuria? Can we un-ketoadapt using similar amounts and similar types of carbs like them? Maybe Bear's right, they should be weaned onto chopped meat. Aajonus had a story of a client whose baby couldn't digest any food, till he gave her chopped meat the first time. Who's the guy on the other forum whose kids only eat fatty pemmican? I wish carbohydrates weren't around me so much. I love fruit, but a very modest portion with some fat and a little (unheated) honey stretches it a long delicious way. I think I would need a (what I call) real nutritionist to work closely with me for me to fully understand this. I don't think I've ever been adapted to carbs like other people. The carbs never gave me good feeling highs or good energy, they just made me nervous or bored or walk or run my ass off and never sit down, but never felt like enough energy. Do you all get more good than that out of substantial carbs?
Breastmilk is high in fat. Newborns (should) spend a lot of time in ketosis, and are therefore ketoadapted. Being ketoadapted means that babies can more easily turn ketone bodies into acetyl-coA and into myelin. Ketosis helps babies construct and grow their brains. (Update - looked more into this specifically and it seems that babies are in mild ketosis, but very young babies seem to utilize lactate as a fuel in lieu of glucose also - some of these were rat studies, though - and the utilization of lactate also promotes the same use of acetyl-CoA and gives the neonates some of the advantages of ketoadaptation without being in heavy ketosis.)
We know (more or less) what all this means for epilepsy (and babies!). We don't precisely know what it means for everyone else, at least brain-wise. Ketosis occurs with carbohydrate restriction, MCT oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-chain_triglycerides) use, or fasting. Some people believe that being ketoadapted is the ideal - others will suggest that we can be more relaxed, and eat a mostly low sugar diet with a bit of intermittent fasting thrown in to give us periods of ketosis (though in general I don't recommend intermittent fasting for anyone with an eating disorder). Ketosis for the body means fat-burning (hip hip hooray!). For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair.
Posted by Emily Deans, M.D
-
Are babies in ketonemia or ketonuria?
You mean 100% breast-fed?
Definitely not ketonuria, as it's rather an unhealthy option resulting in a waste of energy.
Milk has got quite a lot of carbs which are needed so that baby will develop properly.
Do you all get more good than that out of substantial carbs?
Definitely more good.
Wihout any carbs for longer than a few days it's a NO-NO for me.
-
I accidentally had some sugar. (don't ask how) I am wondering how much it would have had to be to kind of un-keto-adapt?
How come you are so worried about about sugar and your weight and stuff at your age? You are 14 right? As long as you eat healthy whole foods at that age you shouldn't worry about anything. If you wanna just eat meat go ahead, but why worry about having some accidental carbs once in a while? It seems illogical, if a few carbs will make you gain weight especially when you're this young.... -\ I have a feeling ZC at that age is asking for trouble, LC would be better, there is a huge difference having a little healthy carb foods and restricting yourself to them completely as you are growing IMO
-
There's a difference between going in and out of ketosis, and the long term adaption to getting energy from the ketones.
So eating the sugar could bump you out of ketosis (depends how much), but if you've been doing it for a while it won't make you lose all your gains.
If you don't eat any carbs for a couple of days and go for a run or whatever, you'll be back in keto land.
-
There's a difference between going in and out of ketosis, and the long term adaption to getting energy from the ketones.
I was probably inaccurately 'quoting' lex but yeah that was more of what I was saying. thanks
---
From what I gather. virtually all people on all diets (including ZC) I am sure will cheat, the degree of how this effects the short term or long term consequences to this process - like most aspects of health - I imagine is little if at all important to the big picture of taking good care of yourself
in general and with the other threads, I think peoples concern is dead on. Its good that you are asking these questions and obviously very smart and motivated, but do you really think a ZC diet is going to give you some kind of edge or necessary function over a diet that includes a few plants and other foods? I mean if your folks arn't giving you a hard time about raw meat, perhaps choosing some middle ground might be the smartest choice overall rather than some scientific solution. Honestly If I was your age, i wouldn't want to be doing a diet that had so many unknowns in regards to my long term health. I mean at least with RPD one can assume perhaps that humans once ate similarly, but even then you don't know 100% if its the best for all people, adolescents etc...due to a variety of factors that might not even be nutritional or quantifiable.
-
I was probably inaccurately 'quoting' lex but yeah that was more of what I was saying. thanks
---
From what I gather. virtually all people on all diets (including ZC) I am sure will cheat, the degree of how this effects the short term or long term consequences to this process - like most aspects of health - I imagine is little if at all important to the big picture of taking good care of yourself
in general and with the other threads, I think peoples concern is dead on. Its good that you are asking these questions and obviously very smart and motivated, but do you really think a ZC diet is going to give you some kind of edge or necessary function over a diet that includes a few plants and other foods? I mean if your folks arn't giving you a hard time about raw meat, perhaps choosing some middle ground might be the smartest choice overall rather than some scientific solution. Honestly If I was your age, i wouldn't want to be doing a diet that had so many unknowns in regards to my long term health. I mean at least with RPD one can assume perhaps that humans once ate similarly, but even then you don't know 100% if its the best for all people, adolescents etc...due to a variety of factors that might not even be nutritional or quantifiable.
Yes, I do believe ZC will give me an advantage.
-
Yes, I do believe ZC will give me an advantage.
OK but why? I can see why you may have advantage over someone who consumes a large amount of carbs, but when compared to someone that just eats a small or average amount, how would you explain the advantage? I am curious.
I can say why eating at least a few carbs can give me an advantage to eating none (I am not sure I want to regurgitate it here as its been discussed so much it will make us regurgitate ), but give some evidence for otherwise.
If you are going to prove something to your parents you can't say you believe and therefore it is so and expect them to agree.
PS. Yes people who are suffering from obesity and other serious issues will have an advantage with zero carb, but thats being used as a treatment not a way of life. And yes there are a few people that cannot tolerate carbs but that is a rare condition and usually brought on by previous damage through bad diet.
-
OK but why? I can see why you may have advantage over someone who consumes a large amount of carbs, but when compared to someone that just eats a small or average amount, how would you explain the advantage? I am curious.
I can say why eating at least a few carbs can give me an advantage to eating none (I am not sure I want to regurgitate it here as its been discussed so much it will make us regurgitate ), but give some evidence for otherwise.
If you are going to prove something to your parents you can't say you believe and therefore it is so and expect them to agree.
PS. Yes people who are suffering from obesity and other serious issues will have an advantage with zero carb, but thats being used as a treatment not a way of life. And yes there are a few people that cannot tolerate carbs but that is a rare condition and usually brought on by previous damage through bad diet.
I feel I perform better athletically on a ZC diet. I probably could tolerate some carbs, though I really would rather just eat meat anyway.
-
right, I mean you are going to have people against ZC philosophically in general. but just saying for you age and situation and stuff, I would go with the surer bet. When you are 30 if you stay on this path you won't be sitting around regretting a few cranberries believe me.
-
I have my little badly weened out bits of raw meat , fat, and berries and am supplamenting with a home made formula. I don't think that you should ween directly into keto. I am attempting to keep the food intake to equal a similar carb to fat ration of breast milk , perhaps a little more raw protein. From what I can tell it works wonderfully and if I am lucky perhaps one day I can write a book about what I am doing.
I am zero to low carb because of my past health history, but in general my people tolerate carbs well and I believe if I just provide my children with raw fats and protein while strictly limiting processed foods as well as some other protocol, then I believe they will be able to thrive wither or not they go ketogenic or not.
If you are going through adaption you should be able to taste it and smell it in your urine. I had a really strong taste in my throat that went away after a few weeks when I became adapted. I have never left ket yet so I am not sure of what to expect if I were to eat a bunch of carbs.
-
right, I mean you are going to have people against ZC philosophically in general. but just saying for you age and situation and stuff, I would go with the surer bet. When you are 30 if you stay on this path you won't be sitting around regretting a few cranberries believe me.
Believe me. Many people are against diets containing meat let alone an all meat diet. Also, what exactly do you mean by the "when you are 30?" One of the biggest problems really is it kind of brought back the taste for sweet. Not the "few cranberries" I consumed.
-
Believe me. Many people are against diets containing meat let alone an all meat diet. Also, what exactly do you mean by the "when you are 30?" One of the biggest problems really is it kind of brought back the taste for sweet. Not the "few cranberries" I consumed.
yeah, I was speaking about people here too. I have no idea whether a purely ZC diet is healthy or not, but I have an inclination to believe if you have no pre-existing health issues you could probably see some great health in a variety of permutations, so perhaps how you define what is the best is not necessary or necessarily so. When you are older, maybe you'll have more perspective on what is best - is what I am saying and likely won't sweat any small stuff. As for cravings, i don't know what to say about that, isn't a problem for me, but I did go through alot of restrictive approaches before doing meat, so havn't eaten SWD foods really in many years. The main thing with health for me is consistency, if you have no one supporting you or making your life a paint that its going to be hard to stay consistent. Discipline over a few addictions seems like the easier route to constant fighting with folks or whatever. Whether they accept a raw meat diet with a little bit of carbs either...yeah I dunno, still have to strike the right balance.
-
yeah, I was speaking about people here too. I have no idea whether a purely ZC diet is healthy or not, but I have an inclination to believe if you have no pre-existing health issues you could probably see some great health in a variety of permutations, so perhaps how you define what is the best is not necessary or necessarily so. When you are older, maybe you'll have more perspective on what is best - is what I am saying and likely won't sweat any small stuff. As for cravings, i don't know what to say about that, isn't a problem for me, but I did go through alot of restrictive approaches before doing meat, so havn't eaten SWD foods really in many years. The main thing with health for me is consistency, if you have no one supporting you or making your life a paint that its going to be hard to stay consistent. Discipline over a few addictions seems like the easier route to constant fighting with folks or whatever. Whether they accept a raw meat diet with a little bit of carbs either...yeah I dunno, still have to strike the right balance.
I see. I don't get cravings or anything, but let's say someone placed a nice big cheesecake in front of me and a nice big steak. Before I accidentally consumed some sugar, if health was a non-factor, I would actually rather have the steak. Now, maybe not so much. I did notice one thing when I went ZC, though. I had an ingrown toenail, looked really gross- puss coming out, large scab, painful wearing vibrams, etc. Went away right when I started eating just meat.
-
I would think completely going without carbohydrates at 14 would be just fine. Why does one really need sugar anyway? All it does is make things easier, but isn't necessary.
At 23, being ZC for 3 months now, I would go back to my childhood years and GLADLY change to a diet without carbohydrates. The benefits of optimized human growth hormone during that growing period would have been very interesting, and astounding to experience. A childhood without chronically high insulin I'm betting would have made the pubescent period much easier to stomach. Under 30g a day would do just fine, but the benefits of full fat-adaptation wouldn't be experienced.
And IMO, ZC has great advantages over 30g of sugar a day. A completely clear mind not being drunk off glucose, a stable sense of well-being, sharper intellect. A higher state of existence that I lose with any ingestion of glucose.
Also, per the mentioning of better athletic ability... I attest to this as well. I perform better zc. Sprints, handstands, agility, dexterity.. especially 15 or so hrs fasted in conjunction.
-
PS. Yes people who are suffering from obesity and other serious issues will have an advantage with zero carb, but thats being used as a treatment not a way of life. And yes there are a few people that cannot tolerate carbs but that is a rare condition and usually brought on by previous damage through bad diet.
Not eating any carbs is not helpful in reducing adipose tissue in obese people.
It detoriorates the metabolism of fatty acids and causes an excessive breakdown of muscle proteins (branch-chain amino acids are broken down so that carbohydrate sceletons can be used for the production of glucose).
People who want to lose weight will be better-off if they eat 50-70 grams of carbs a day.
-
? afaik If you eat 50-70g carbs, it just means you don't use fat until you've used that up. afaik There's no excessive breakdown of muscle tissues, that's why you use the ketones to spare muscle protein, and then you replace the muscle you do use when you next eat meat.
-
@miles
You are obviously wrong.
50-70 g of glucose is the minimum - if you eat less that doesn't mean that you'll use ketones in liue of glucose; the branch chain amino acids will be broken down and so on.
Ketones cannot fuel the cells witout mitochondria, cannot fuel high-intensity anaerobic exercises. Only glucose can.
If you eat 50-70 g of glucose you'll use a plethora of ketones to fuel the cells that can be fueled this way.
But it's a minimum. For a young man who is physically and metally active the minimum is at 100 g, more or less.
-
@miles
You are obviously wrong.
50-70 g of glucose is the minimum - if you eat less that doesn't mean that you'll use ketones in liue of glucose; the branch chain amino acids will be broken down and so on.
Ketones cannot fuel the cells witout mitochondria, cannot fuel high-intensity anaerobic exercises. Only glucose can.
If you eat 50-70 g of glucose you'll use a plethora of ketones to fuel the cells that can be fueled this way.
But it's a minimum. For a young man who is physically and metally active the minimum is at 100 g, more or less.
Hannibal, since you've said a number of things like this in the past and i've never understood it myself, can you expand on this if you get a chance? I'm not questioning your recommendation but I don't quite understand what process is going on with longer term total ZC folk - in terms of mental and physical stuff - going on the small amounts of glucose produces through protein etc...
Also, since I know some days you do just animal foods are your recommending 50-70 g more or less daily? or average? or just a few days a week?
-
Hannibal, since you've said a number of things like this in the past and i've never understood it myself
What haven't you understood? Have I said something unclearly?
can you expand on this if you get a chance? I'm not questioning your recommendation but I don't quite understand what process is going on with longer term total ZC folk - in terms of mental and physical stuff - going on the small amounts of glucose produces through protein etc...
What do you mean? Precisely.
Also, since I know some days you do just animal foods are your recommending 50-70 g more or less daily? or average? or just a few days a week?
Yes, daily. But as I said it's a minimum. For me it's too little.
-
What is so bad about using protein to make glucose?
-
What haven't you understood? Have I said something unclearly?What do you mean? Precisely. Yes, daily.
well, you make it sound impossible to function when not at these minimums you listed. I can see expressing concerns or something about long term problems if you feel that is right, but you make it sounds like one cannot function in performance (mental or physical) without these minimum levels of glucose provided by plant food. So I was curious what scientific process you think is happening in people that can perform, and how long before the king of issues you are suggesting.
Yes, daily. But as I said it's a minimum. For me it's too little.
what do you mean by too little? as in.. What is the exact repercussion when below? Energy? You've mention you stay keto-adapted at high levels of carbs, but isn't being keto-adapted mean precisely able to get energy without carbs if necessary or just generally?
also I don't understand much generally with this issue at all, other then what i've read and experienced, so I was hoping for something from scratch :), but if you could answer the above that would suffice.
-
What is so bad about using protein to make glucose?
In cat liver - there is nothing wrong. It's "desidgned" to do so.
Human metabolism is different.
How different? The answer is in biochemistry.
-
well, you make it sound impossible to function when not at these minimums you listed.
Yes it is possible to function without them. But either you will get them from proteins that you eat or from your muscle proteins.
So I was curious what scientific process you think is happening in people that can perform, and how long before the king of issues you are suggesting.
The production of glucose from puryvate, lactate, glycerol and amino acids.
what do you mean by too little? as in.. What is the exact repercussion when below? Energy? You've mention you stay keto-adapted at high levels of carbs, but isn't being keto-adapted mean precisely able to get energy without carbs if necessary or just generally?
High levels are - 500, 600, 700 g of carbs.
As I previously said some kinds of cells MUST BE FUELED by glucose, if somebody likes it or not; and ketones can fuel the other ones.
If your blood lactate reaches 4 mmol/L (while some physical activity) then glucose is the NUMBER ONE. It's only the example.
also I don't understand much generally with this issue at all, other then what i've read and experienced, so I was hoping for something from scratch :), but if you could answer the above that would suffice.
"Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition" would suffice you :)
-
@miles
You are obviously wrong.
50-70 g of glucose is the minimum - if you eat less that doesn't mean that you'll use ketones in liue of glucose; the branch chain amino acids will be broken down and so on.
Ketones cannot fuel the cells witout mitochondria, cannot fuel high-intensity anaerobic exercises. Only glucose can.
If you eat 50-70 g of glucose you'll use a plethora of ketones to fuel the cells that can be fueled this way.
But it's a minimum. For a young man who is physically and metally active the minimum is at 100 g, more or less.
When you have carbohydrates your body runs off of them until they are gone, sparing your muscle and fat.
When you use up the carbs, you begin to use protein for glucose, and that's when you start producing ketones, and the more adapted you are to this state, the more of those ketones you can use rather than expelling them(sweat/urine), and the less protein you need to use. Of course, anaerobic activity takes more glucose as you can't use the ketones. You can replace your protein tissue when you eat protein, just as you replace your fat.
-
When you have carbohydrates your body runs off of them until they are gone, sparing your muscle and fat.
When you use up the carbs, you begin to use protein for glucose, and that's when you start producing ketones
False.
The glucose on LC fuels primarily the cells that must be fueled this way.
That doesn't whatsover disturb the ketones production.
Those are the different metabolic pathways.
-
In cat liver - there is nothing wrong. It's "desidgned" to do so.
Human metabolism is different.
How different? The answer is in biochemistry.
I'm interested in human diets and real answers.
-
actually......
The first day of no carb, you will have small amount of gluconeogenesis. I remember reading it's around 1/3 of a pound.
Now if you've already spent much time exercising and existing in a fat-adapted state, I would guess it to be even less.
Once fat-adapted.... gluconeogenesis is a rarity... triglycerides get broken down into the free fatty acids and the two glyceride components in lipolysis to combine and make glycogen.
Most of our body can run on ketones alone, and the small percentage that relies solely on glycogen get it from lipolysis. Gluconeogensis doesn't continue to occur to any significant degree.
It's known for being protein sparring for that very reason!! Human growth hormone mobilizing free fatty acids that feed the muscle and also the majority of our organism!
The body does everything it can to conserve protein.
Personally, I've experienced nothing but great results when it comes to muscle preservation. I do daily 15-20 hour fasts fat-adapted, working a physical job the entire time.
-
Yes it is possible to function without them. But either you will get them from proteins that you eat or from your muscle proteins.
High levels are - 500, 600, 700 g of carbs.
As I previously said some kinds of cells MUST BE FUELED by glucose
"Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition" would suffice you :)
thanks, for the book, I like pictures. :D eventually i'll try to read it good.
I was just saying 'high' on the spectrum of what is within LC or whatever. not outrageous amounts. Its been proposed by some (as per the surrounding conversation it seems) that the levels you suggest actually impact the process you are speaking of. Like I said, I don't knw, but that was my impression too.
to me, I've been personally trying to experiment with higher carb levels (over 30g) as I can see advantages nutritionally (possibly) but havn't seen any overall effect on performance. Since I don't do alot of sugary fruits, it actually takes effort to boot. So, while i'm interested in the discussion intellectually and don't really want to be an example of the pros of either, I''m also a little stumped why I havn't had issues with anaerobic stuff, or endurance really. In a nutshell, my muscles don't seem to waste even with low dietary protein/glucose. that is why I thought you were referring maybe to just the very long term which I can't comment on, but that doesn't seem to be the case?
not saying this person has any integrity, particularly in regards to raw, but Nora Gedgaudas suggests that a LC (probably not keto) low protein diet is sufficient for a pro strength trainer. If they are still LC and chewing up tons of exertion, why wouldn't they also need tons of dietary glucose? even if they were around 100g or so, wouldn't this get used up with immense activity while someone actually adapted to keto wouldn't have a problem?
-
to me, I've been personally trying to experiment with higher carb levels (over 30g) as I can see advantages nutritionally (possibly) but havn't seen any overall effect on performance. Since I don't do alot of sugary fruits, it actually takes effort to boot. So, while i'm interested in the discussion intellectually and don't really want to be an example of the pros of either, I''m also a little stumped why I havn't had issues with anaerobic stuff, or endurance really.
So follow your way of eating, really :)
I experimented with such low levels of carbs several years ago and I realized after some time that I couldn't maintain my body mass - I simply lost it, gradually. Besides I felt overall not optimally.
And I realized that it agrees with the biochemistry, generally.
-
Once fat-adapted.... gluconeogenesis is a rarity... triglycerides get broken down into the free fatty acids and the two glyceride components in lipolysis to combine and make glycogen.
I thought most of the glucose produced from the glycerol was used to fuel gluconeogenesis.
-
So follow your way of eating, really :)
I experimented with such low levels of carbs several years ago and I realized after some time that I couldn't maintain my body mass - I simply lost it, gradually. Besides I felt overall not optimally.
And I realized that it agrees with the biochemistry, generally.
oh, come now. I'm not looking for enforcement of my eating, I'm just reading what you are saying and as I said before - don't seem to line up with what i've read on this forum or elsewhere - as well as my experience. If you can actually sell me on why its absolutely as necessary - as you were implying (and not so relative to differnt individuals), I would bite and do more experimenting. I wasn't suggesting I have it easy with maintaining mass, I was just saying I don't seem to be in some kind of metabolic ruin, unable to doing activity like you were suggesting. I'm not bragging, its just happens to be the opposite and there must be some reason as to why. Even without experiencing issues its good to know any underlying potential for such.
I'm looking for ways to think about these issues differently - and I assume are others - but individual experiments don't prove that its impossible or dangerous to not take in your minimums for dietary glucose (and be active etc..), even if I might agree there might be 'safe-bets' particularly for growing people - kids.
-
Once fat-adapted.... gluconeogenesis is a rarity... triglycerides get broken down into the free fatty acids and the two glyceride components in lipolysis to combine and make glycogen.
Most of our body can run on ketones alone, and the small percentage that relies solely on glycogen get it from lipolysis. Gluconeogensis doesn't continue to occur to any significant degree.
That's obviously untrue.
From 100 g of diatery fat you've got only 10 g of carbs.
How much can you eat? 200 g, 300 g?
That's true that ketones can fuel a plethora of our cells, but not all. The ones that are GLUCOSE DEPENDENT need a mininum of 50-70 g of glucose, but when someone is mentally and physically (anaerobically) active then the requirement exceeds the 100 g for sure and can reach 150 g. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html
Puryvate, which is the output of glycolisis is quickly converted to oxaloacetate which is needed to metabolize the Acetyl-CoA.
That way the carbs are the best "kindling" (generate the best FLAME) to burn the FAT.
-
If you can actually sell me on why its absolutely as necessary - as you were implying (and not so relative to differnt individuals), I would bite and do more experimenting.
I said that it is better to eat those amounts of carbs from biochemical point of view.
But as you definitely know there are people who eat some junk food and feel like they are in heaven, train very well on a gym, etc.
So being young, with good genes is very helpful.
-
@miles
You are obviously wrong.
50-70 g of glucose is the minimum - if you eat less that doesn't mean that you'll use ketones in liue of glucose; the branch chain amino acids will be broken down and so on.
Ketones cannot fuel the cells witout mitochondria, cannot fuel high-intensity anaerobic exercises. Only glucose can.
If you eat 50-70 g of glucose you'll use a plethora of ketones to fuel the cells that can be fueled this way.
Yes, daily. But as I said it's a minimum. For me it's too little.
to me this is entirely different then saying 'it is better to eat those amounts of carbs from biochemical point of view'. In fact i've said the same thing in regards to typical 'low carb' (low-er fat) diets that might as well have a heavy amount of carbs if they are not burning fats efficiently - because they will have to go through inefficient processes prior to some kind of adaptation.
You seem to be suggesting that people can consume a larger portion of carbs than I've ever seen suggested to maintain this process -> 30 and even in some cases over 100g. You also pretty much did imply that it would be impossible to be active and would present issues with breaking down of muscle proteins if there was inadequate glucose as being defaults. defaults that can't be avoided no matter how healthy a person would be. as per cooked junk, I think that is kind of irrelevant, particularly for me. in 5 years of various raw permutations (high to VLC), this is having sound progress, but more importantly doesn't seem to require the levels you are saying to avoid such issues - yet, but that doesn't preclude improvement or my desire to taken in optimal information or nutrition.
if someone is not taking in glucose and thriving, obviously the performance is coming from somewhere. In a sense, since you say you don't do well without such levels regularly, it is suspicious how much you are adapted to burning fat exclusively for energy. Not saying you are not fundamentally right with what works for you the best, or possibly even for myself in the future, I just know that lacking plant plant foods has no negative impact on my current energy or performance (if we are talking days and weeks, never gone months). Although it did drastically i'd say for at least 6 months strait or so if not longer to 'adapt' and probably am not completely efficient in the process. Right now I consider plant food valuable for nutrition (unconvinced for this metabolic stuff), but possibly not necessary I guess.
But to be clear, I am very open minded with this issue about making these kind of decisions myself, I just don't think you are making case against 'VLC' or "ZC' as bad, other then now what 'might' be most optimal for athletics. There are after-all a 'plethora' of reasons people don't consume carbs -right or wrong - independent of wanting to burn fat as fuel most efficiently as being crucial, even tho for me personally i'm definitely influenced by the latter and affect my eating of carbs, so yeah I'm open to being convinced!
-
That's obviously untrue.
From 100 g of diatery fat you've got only 10 g of carbs.
How much can you eat? 200 g, 300 g?
That's true that ketones can fuel a plethora of our cells, but not all. The ones that are GLUCOSE DEPENDENT need a mininum of 50-70 g of glucose, but when someone is mentally and physically (anaerobically) active then the requirement exceeds the 100 g for sure and can reach 150 g. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html
Puryvate, which is the output of glycolisis is quickly converted to oxaloacetate which is needed to metabolize the Acetyl-CoA.
That way the carbs are the best "kindling" (generate the best FLAME) to burn the FAT.
If you have no dietary carbs, triglycerides in the liver, delivered from adipose, are broken down to glycerol and fatty acids. These glycerol molecules pair up to form glucose, which is then broken to pyruvate.. This fuels gluconeogenesis in the liver. At the same time, those fatty acids which were released are converted to ketones in the liver.
?
pyruvate is just a stage between sugars and atp??
-
You seem to be suggesting that people can consume a larger portion of carbs than I've ever seen suggested to maintain this process -> 30 and even in some cases over 100g.
So you probably haven't seen enough :)
You also pretty much did imply that it would be impossible to be active and would present issues with breaking down of muscle proteins if there was inadequate glucose as being defaults.
I was only implyiing that it is better to eat a sufficient amount of carbs than not to eat them.
But you you can be very active without them, yet you've got to eat much more protein.
Ihalmiut people had eaten up to 4 kg of meat a day, usually from caribou. And yes, they were physically very active.
There are after-all a 'plethora' of reasons people don't consume carbs -right or wrong - independent of wanting to burn fat as fuel most efficiently as being crucial, even tho for me personally i'm definitely influenced by the latter and affect my eating of carbs, so yeah I'm open to being convinced!
So you don't understand that eating too litle of carbs makes the fat metabolism worse?
-
So you probably haven't seen enough :)
I was only implyiing that it is better to eat a sufficient amount of carbs than not to eat them.
But you you can be very active without them, yet you've got to eat much more protein.
Ihalmiut people had eaten up to 4 kg of meat a day, usually from caribou. And yes, they were physically very active. So you don't understand that eating too litle of carbs makes the fat metabolism worse?
well, technically I have seen the breakdowns by Mark Sisson and such that have extended ranges of carbs in regards to this issue and for athletes, with the levels below your minimums indeed being listed as 'for rapid weight-loss' or something. I dunno to me there is just so little evidence of people going really deep into extended trials - particularly on raw - to make such conclusions that it will always be difficult to gain weight/perform etc without glucose especially if some people do seem to defy it.
at the same time, I can see how you think eating too little carbs can also impact the fat burning process itself negatively, but honestly yes, i'm still confused by the scientific process that says this is so, other than your convincing terms like kindling. Pretty sure i've never eaten 1 kg of muscle meat in a day, hence why i'm presently on the fence with this issue I guess. It would still be hard to say the protein amount (Ihalmiut) was necessary over just the amount and type of food they could acquire. Fats alone seem to do the trick for me, and perhaps maybe willpower does the rest :)
its ok. I appreciate your responses. lets see if anyone else can offer their explanations.
-
lets see if anyone else can offer their explanations.
I hope that gosu44 will contribute to that discussion. :)
-
Well I have more thoughts on this later, but a few things biochem wise :D:
The glycerol we get from fatty acids is supposedly not a significant source of glucose in general but if we were to derive glucose, yes the glycerol would be oxidized to DHAP and then Glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate. The G3p wouldn't go to pyruvate (due to concentrations of metabolic regulating factors of the time) if the point was to make glucose. It would simply combine with another G3P (3 carbon molecule) to continue up gluconeogensis to make glucose (6 carbon molecule).
As far as the oxaloacetate needed for the TCA cycle (Krebs), and therefore is needed for respiration process and utilizing Acetyl CoA,
The oxaloacetate can be made from certain amino acids by deaminating them. So technically you have a source of the oxaloacetate. Also if you were not consuming carbohydrates, the TCA would run fine processing the acetyl CoAs from fatty acids, as well as the various amino acids breakdowns which can lead to aceyl CoA's as well.
As far as what the original post question about ketosis and sugar consumption bringing him out of it, i have some anecdotal thoughts on I'll post later.
-
The oxaloacetate can be made from certain amino acids by deaminating them. So technically you have a source of the oxaloacetate. Also if you were not consuming carbohydrates, the TCA would run fine processing the acetyl CoAs from fatty acids, as well as the various amino acids breakdowns which can lead to aceyl CoA's as well.
Those amino acids which are degraded to oxaloacetate are aspartate and asparagine. I know it.
But it's simplier and quicker to burn FAT using glucose than proteins. The process is quickier - from glucose via glycolysis to puryvate and then to oxaloacetate.
-
I'm not understanding what you're trying to prove... that glucose consumption leads to faster fat metabolism? I'm going to have to disagree. With glucose consumption you wouldn't need to break down fat to create AS many missing TCA/gluconeogensis intermediates. In addition the glycerol would not be used to make glucose via gluneogenesis if you already have a supply of glucose. Fat storages would stay "more" put given glucose presence since that would be used for respiration before fat.
-
Gosu,
So regardless.. fat loss is greater on the lower carb/zc approach than with 30+ carbs a day. Correct?
With glycerol being available for combining G3P, is that enough to serve the processes that can solely rely on glucose? Is the fat-adapted state muscle sparring then? Is it correct to say that once fat-adapted, muscle protein for gluconeogenesis is rarely used?
-
i say i have to agree with Hannibal.. i just posted a thread.. i do much BETTER with carbs.. i tried zero carb and promptly lost like 5lbs of muscle in 2 weeks.. now i added carbs, and ive gained that much in 2 weeks.
-
"So regardless.. fat loss is greater on the lower carb/zc approach than with 30+ carbs a day. Correct?"
If fat loss is the sole focus then I'm inclined to say yes on a theoretical basis. But like most of the processes total protein (and fat) consumption would have to factor in as well. But also an argument could be made that carbs could provide immediate fuel for high intense activity and therefore raise metabolic rates way higher so your net productive activity could result in more fat being burned. In other words you might feel more strength/power to do whatever exercise for a net burning of more fuel. I'm also still learning about these things so don't take my word as a final say.
"With glycerol being available for combining G3P, is that enough to serve the processes that can solely rely on glucose? Is the fat-adapted state muscle sparring then? Is it correct to say that once fat-adapted, muscle protein for gluconeogenesis is rarely used?"
No way glycerol would be enough to supply the body with all of the glucose needs. The glucose in this case would presumably come from amino acids (protein component of ZC diet). The fat-adapted state is muscle sparing but without adequate protein intake I would still say its still a net loss of muscle.
Once fat-adapted the process of gluconeogenesis HAS to occur still because you will be converting amino acids to glucose. I think the bottom line is if you have adequate protein intake so that your glucose lee\vels can be maintained AND the body has enough protein to maintain muscle. In fasting, there is no protein (or carb/fat) intake so during ketosis the body fat gets "converted" to oxaloacetate and thus travel up the path of gluconeogenesis to make glucose. The body muscle is spared once again as much as possible. -d
-
that glucose consumption leads to faster fat metabolism?
Definitely. Adequate amounts of carbs - I mean.
I've just consulted with the person who is very good in biochemistry.
-
Ok, so would you elaborate? :)
But I'm not sure how the discussion has evolved to this. I thought the purpose of this thread was asking how to halt ketosis via glucose consumption.
Btw, I'm not convinced ZC would be best for athletic performance.
-
Ok, so would you elaborate? :)
I will try, but some other time.
-
if u do any sort of workout plz include some carbs or u'll lose all that muscle fast.. happened to me anyways..
-
Is it correct to say that once fat-adapted, muscle protein for gluconeogenesis is rarely used?
No, it's always being used if you don't consume carbohydrates, just the better keto-adapted you are, the less generally needs to occur. The gluconeogenesis and the ketogenesis happen together.
-
i think the whole concept of keto gets blown out of proportion.. your body uses whatever you feed it, simple..
I see people on keto forums likE OMG! i just had 0.001 ounce of sugar, am i out of keto??? jeez..
I eat like 400 calories from carbs, and maybe 2000 from fat, and another 1000 from protein, and if my BODY only burned fat when i was in keto, then id be either dead right now(since my body can only use the carbs/protein right)? or id be super fat from my body storing all that fat..
bottom line is your body eats what u feed it, i dont buy into that out of keto/into keto.. if u eat 100g of carbs for the day, and 500g of fat, your body will USE that 500g of fat for energy, plain and simple..
If however, you eat 1000g of carbs, and 1000g of fat, then i can see your body burning thru the carbs and storing the fat for later... but as long as you dont meet your requirements with carbs alone, your body will be in some state of fat burning mode for calories..
-
i think the whole concept of keto gets blown out of proportion.. your body uses whatever you feed it, simple..
I see people on keto forums likE OMG! i just had 0.001 ounce of sugar, am i out of keto??? jeez..
I eat like 400 calories from carbs, and maybe 2000 from fat, and another 1000 from protein, and if my BODY only burned fat when i was in keto, then id be either dead right now(since my body can only use the carbs/protein right)? or id be super fat from my body storing all that fat..
bottom line is your body eats what u feed it, i dont buy into that out of keto/into keto.. if u eat 100g of carbs for the day, and 500g of fat, your body will USE that 500g of fat for energy, plain and simple..
If however, you eat 1000g of carbs, and 1000g of fat, then i can see your body burning thru the carbs and storing the fat for later... but as long as you dont meet your requirements with carbs alone, your body will be in some state of fat burning mode for calories..
500g of fat is 5,000 Calories.
400g carbs is over 2.5-3kg of sweet potato, or 2,000 Calories.
If you eat 100g of carbs(>500g sweet potato)/500Calories, you will first run solely from those 100g carbs, and won't use any protein or fat for energy. After you've used them up, then you will switch to using protein and fat.
-
i know my math is wrong miles, but u get what i was saying? basically im saying right now im eating 500 calories from carbs a day.. the rest fat/protein.. according to the keto fan boys i am DEF not in keto, but tell that to my body using fat for energy.. im still alive, and im not gaining fat..
-
@mrz
The amount of carbs that you eat fuel erythrocytes, some part of your brain, the other cells without mitochondria + high-intensity exercises. For those exercises the muscle glycogen is used; for the cells - liver glycogen.
And you have definitely got a ketonemia - lots of ketones are present in your blood and probably nothing is excreted in the urine.
Your main source is FAT, as it should be. :)
-
i know my math is wrong miles, but u get what i was saying? basically im saying right now im eating 500 calories from carbs a day.. the rest fat/protein.. according to the keto fan boys i am DEF not in keto, but tell that to my body using fat for energy.. im still alive, and im not gaining fat..
not trying to rag on your diet - which from the other thread sounds like a sensible solution - but you are missing the point. If people can prove in fact that it is not 'keto' chemically, then your process is both inefficient in burning the fats for energy, and simultaneously low in total carbs for fueling X amounts of activity. It might not be a life or death thing, or counteract most of the advantages in regard to energy freed up being mostly raw. At the same time it is still important to establish a clear definition, but yeah, perhaps not sweat the 0.001 ounces.
There probably are not many people here that this is a life or death issue, but for some percentage, it could theoretically be crucial - for health. For me personally, if I am not burning fats most efficiently for energy, yeah it makes way more sense to go to plant carbs for fueling workouts, but not prior. Why would I do something that might jeopardize my ability to get the most out of 2000 calories from fat or whatever by eating a few extra carbs in the effort to have more energy? If people can actually PROVE that it doesn't efect the process negatively AT ALL - eating that many carbs- then that is a different story. Just speaking in terms of energy only here - not nutrients- and not putting on weight, which probably will require some carbs, unless like some longer term folks point out - it takes a very long time to start turning excess fat and protein calories to lean mass and probably won't happen in short term experimentation.
(not this this validates pushing into long term experimentation).
I'd say as a general rule, common sense says if you need carbs regularly for energy after just a few days without them (short enough that it can not possibly be deficiency) the odds of actually being efficient in regards to using fats for energy are slim.
-
I have been 11 months into a diet that is an average of 30 carbs a day and never more than 50, so far I initially gained weight but now I am a steady 170. I seem to have all the energy I need, I don't feel good if I eat extra carbs,
If I don't have any I will get more fatigued and have never gone more than a couple of days without any carbs. I crave carbs but haven't found any that suit me other than coconut and lemon water. I had blood sugar issues that have been completely resolved on this diet. I am happy with staying low carb, but am still worried about long term issues.
Are there any people who have sustained very low carb paleo diets. I have always had the mind set that ZC could be maintained long enough for the body to heal and then there could be a gradual return to a more carb rich diet. But so far I am not sure about exactly how to. Now I am running more on instinct which says keep the carbs in the current range.
-
I was very low carb for a very long time, years ago. I didn't suffer from it as such, I simply found that I didn't do very well in sports as a result. Weightlifting was a disaster for me on RVLC or RZC and I found that I had no stamina whatsoever with things like mountain-hiking with a backpack.
-
I have been 11 months into a diet that is an average of 30 carbs a day and never more than 50, so far I initially gained weight but now I am a steady 170. I seem to have all the energy I need, I don't feel good if I eat extra carbs ,(...)
I had blood sugar issues
Maybe you have been borderline diabetic, so that 30 g of carbs could have been quite a good amount. Bernstein advocates it.
Now I am running more on instinct which says keep the carbs in the current range.
And what your instict says about protein and fat?
but am still worried about long term issues.
Good. :)
There have been quite a lot of Polish people who have followed strict "Optimal Diet" and after several years, sometimes even 10, they have been struck by severe problems. But for the first years they have felt like in heaven, supposedly ;)
-
Good. :)
There have been quite a lot of Polish people who have followed strict "Optimal Diet" and after several years, sometimes even 10, they have been struck by severe problems. But for the first years they have felt like in heaven, supposedly ;)
I don't think that the example of the Optimal Diet gives any serious backing to the notion that RZC or RVLC is unhealthy. The Optimal Diet is a revolting one in which the vast majority of foods in it are cooked(I believe the guru is a real fan of thorough cooking) and it contains vast amounts of things like pasteurised dairy(which is a real problem food). I don't think it even recommends grassfed meats but mainly very fatty grainfed meat instead, as the diet primarily focuses on cooked animal fats in a very big way.
-
I don't think that the example of the Optimal Diet gives any serious backing to the notion that RZC or RVLC is unhealthy.
I give that example ONLY to show that people can feel great on their diet for several years and then "collapse".
I referred to that "long-term issue".
The Optimal Diet is a revolting one in which the vast majority of foods in it are cooked(I believe the guru is a real fan of thorough cooking) and it contains vast amounts of things like pasteurised dairy(which is a real problem food). I don't think it even recommends grassfed meats but mainly very fatty grainfed meat instead, as the diet primarily focuses on cooked animal fats in a very big way.
Yeah, that's true.
And there is usually to little of carbs + protein, and too much fat.
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=1077
-
"I give that example ONLY to show that people can feel great on their diet for several years and then "collapse".
If you argue that then that gives no footing for anecdotal experience... which is what most people rely on on this forum...
-
If you argue that then that gives no footing for anecdotal experience...
What I'm trying to suggest is that we should be cautious. That's it.
-
No, it's always being used if you don't consume carbohydrates, just the better keto-adapted you are, the less generally needs to occur. The gluconeogenesis and the ketogenesis happen together.
Hmm, okay, good to know. It's getting to the point now that I don't even notice I'm without carbs, so I think my efficiency continues to rise. I'm trying to experiment with increasing mitochondria fat efficiency/number with hard anaerobic and aerobic conditioning. Also with not quenching oxidation at all with any vitamin C, E, or plant phytonutrients. My reasoning is going off the nobel deserving experiment with worms that were genetically engineered to live 5 times longer in accordance with what zero glucose would cause. In the test, once they were given glucose, all those gains were lost. Along with that, there is a related study similar in structure where they gave them vitamin C, and E and their lifespans were cut short as well. The antioxidant factor stopped the body from upping its own natural antioxidants. I also remember reading that without quenching the oxidation, muscle cells are created better, mitochondria act advantageously and so on.
I'm using hard resistance(as high as the cycles can go) and doing 30 second intervals with 1:30 minute rest with ZC. Experimenting with HGH, endurance, lactic acid thresholds... whatever I can get out of it, really. I'm also going with heavy deadlifts and what not, but those don't go as far as a sprint in intensity. The oxygen debt created, more or less.
My idea is that during our evolution, times without food, plus high levels of activity caused us to be completely fat-adapted. We have years of catching up to do mitochondria wise, so this is my attempt to delve into this area and see what kind of results I get.
Any thoughts?
-
If fat loss is the sole focus then I'm inclined to say yes on a theoretical basis. But like most of the processes total protein (and fat) consumption would have to factor in as well. But also an argument could be made that carbs could provide immediate fuel for high intense activity and therefore raise metabolic rates way higher so your net productive activity could result in more fat being burned. In other words you might feel more strength/power to do whatever exercise for a net burning of more fuel. I'm also still learning about these things so don't take my word as a final say."
No way glycerol would be enough to supply the body with all of the glucose needs. The glucose in this case would presumably come from amino acids (protein component of ZC diet). The fat-adapted state is muscle sparing but without adequate protein intake I would still say its still a net loss of muscle.
Once fat-adapted the process of gluconeogenesis HAS to occur still because you will be converting amino acids to glucose. I think the bottom line is if you have adequate protein intake so that your glucose lee\vels can be maintained AND the body has enough protein to maintain muscle. In fasting, there is no protein (or carb/fat) intake so during ketosis the body fat gets "converted" to oxaloacetate and thus travel up the path of gluconeogenesis to make glucose. The body muscle is spared once again as much as possible. -d
I see exactly what you're saying. I've been experimenting with using whey an hour before workout to use the free glucose for intensity. I did this twice, but won't be continuing. It did up my ability to maintain intensity, but I felt it made it easier on my body resulting in less adaptation on a cellular level. Hard to explain, but that is how it felt. In my case, I would rather have all my activity come from fat throughout the day and coming days in response to my activity. Prolonging the recovery and whatever advantages that can provide.
Protein intake does have to be a tad bit higher on a fat-adapted diet, doesn't it. And I do notice what hannibal mentioned earlier in this thread about using BCAAs past a certain lactic threshold. I'm wondering if this could be a beneficial factor in the long-run. Causing higher amounts of damage, and resulting in more repairs having to be made as opposed to glucose loaded. I'm not sure if it's related to this, but I feel that my muscle comes in tighter, and more dense on this diet. It could be from fasting and accumulating damage, and then repairing it in a nightly mini-bulk resulting in unstretched muscle coming in. My inclination is that muscle maturity could be reached faster on a fat-adapted diet because of the ease in which damage is caused. Muscle maturity basically being volume and quality of damage acculumated to be later repaired and made stronger over time.
I've found that making it harder on the body only results in the best adaptations. Given proper protein, fats, and calories are consumed in the end.
-
Who's the guy on the other forum whose kids only eat fatty pemmican?
Can't remember his name but here are his children : http://www.youtube.com/user/chachajoe8#p/u
-
I seem to be well fitted to a very low carb diet that enables me to work steadily for hours on end without fatigue. Although I haven't tried to test the limit to my stamina anytime recently, I don't think its necessary in my case because I do so much physical labor. Perhaps for some low carb people who are more sedentary it may be necessary to load up on carbs and do strenuous workouts to stay in shape, or for people who wish to gain bulk to do carb cycling, but I am happy and stable at about 165 pounds, and feel about as strong as I need to be without any want to experiment with carbs.
Its seems that too many carbs interfere with my ability to optimally digest fats and proteins.
Something phenomenal has happend me on this low carb diet. I seem to be able to regulate the amount of fat and protein I eat by some newly discovered instinct. I will vary my fat amounts from 80% of total caloric intake to 60% based on what I crave. I will very often set out a meal that is about 80% fat calories and about half way into it I will suddenly need more protein, so I will leave the remainding fat trimmings and cut up some more muscle meat and eat until I have reached the right balance: or If I bolt down to much fat in a meal I will get a craving for more muscle meat after a meal and cut up some more lean meat as a snack to balance out ft to protein as my cravings demand.
Before this diet I never experienced anything like this, I would make a plate of food and eat it , and had to suffer the ill effects without any way of knowing what to avoid and what to continue eating. Now I have some inner voice telling me what to eat and how much, it seems almost unreal how much things have improved over the last year.
-
Hmm, okay, good to know. It's getting to the point now that I don't even notice I'm without carbs, so I think my efficiency continues to rise. I'm trying to experiment with increasing mitochondria fat efficiency/number with hard anaerobic and aerobic conditioning. Also with not quenching oxidation at all with any vitamin C, E, or plant phytonutrients. My reasoning is going off the nobel deserving experiment with worms that were genetically engineered to live 5 times longer in accordance with what zero glucose would cause. In the test, once they were given glucose, all those gains were lost. Along with that, there is a related study similar in structure where they gave them vitamin C, and E and their lifespans were cut short as well. The antioxidant factor stopped the body from upping its own natural antioxidants. I also remember reading that without quenching the oxidation, muscle cells are created better, mitochondria act advantageously and so on.
links to these studies?
-
I seem to be well fitted to a very low carb diet that enables me to work steadily for hours on end without fatigue. Although I haven't tried to test the limit to my stamina anytime recently, I don't think its necessary in my case because I do so much physical labor.
sure, well we'll find out when square up in the very low-carb raw meat cage match. :)
winner takes home a sheep
hehe...good to hear your progress as always.
---
I for one..still have no answer to the original question.
I ate 3: 4x4x1 inch honeycombs and some pineapple and some alcohol ??? in a 2 week period, and havn't noticed much of anything drastic with energy, and just a few negative issues otherwise that show some positive improvements in that regard to other sugar related stuff. I did have shifts in FBG which i'm now at this moment investigating on http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%281%29 as this shift I guess is very typical.
I'm still in the midst of getting back on my normal routine though..so its hard to tell, but so far there doesn't seem to be issues. It seems to me the hardest part must be the initial switch over to burning fats for fuel, and once that is in place and one hasn't totally re-adapted to carbs..it shouldn't be very long to 'recover',..but who knows.
-
I checked out the link and it does kind of worry me about the long term issue of insulin resistance, I have read about a few zcer who become insulin resistance and after a few years they develop elevated glucose, although I am not sure if they are 100% raw as I am. I had someother type of sugar issue that wasn't insulin resistance, It was almost as if the fungal infection damaged my pancrease and I could produce enough insulin to bring my blood sugars below 100. I would often eat very little for dinner and go to bed at 100 and then a full 12 hour after eatting my last meal my sugar would spike up 15 points or so while I was sleeping, I think my liver was damaged and would make to much glucose, perhaps these issues resulted in me being able to thrive off of zero carb. Because my cells were already accustom to lower than normal insulin levels and my liver seems to produce a large amount of glucose I had a a much easier time adapting to zc than the average person. I am now committed to this way of life so I wish to know if there are long term issues I should be aware of regarding insulin resistance. Even if there are such issues I don't think it would change much, because before this diet my sugars would spike to the upper one hundreds and would not come down for hours, so even if after five years I shift from an average of about 85 to 100 I would still be better off than I was before. I would still like to avoid such from happening because I am real sensitive to extra glucose and even a blood sugar reading of 100 makes me feel lousy
Are there any long term Raw low carbers who have been ketogenic for a few years that give some advice about what may work to avoid insulin resistance, or offer possible theory's as to why it happens. I was thinking that after a few years of loading the body up with saturated fats and maintaining low carbs that the cell walls may become less able to receive insulin somehow