232763 Bullies, 3559 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 30 of 46
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 123 45 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. sazahko is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    59

    Posted On:
    4/05/2013 8:18pm


     Style: Headbutts

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
    Do keto diets actually work? Fats have higher calories than carbs and I heard that low carb diets were unhealthy.
    They can work - they do force your body to burn fats preferentially as opposed to carbs. The problem is that your body (specifically, your brain) does need glucose to operate, so you have to watch your intake, lest you get your body having to convert lots of fats/proteins into carbs, which has certain unpleasant metabolic byproducts (ketones/ammonia). Your body's normally able to handle these byproducts, but it does merit monitoring if you go that route.

    Basically, the theory's sound, but the application often requires lots of trial and error for each individual. As Mister mentioned with regard to calories, you may not actually know what your body needs nutritionally. So if you're smart about it, it can work.

    -Sazzy
    Last edited by sazahko; 4/05/2013 8:23pm at .
  2. Chili Pepper is offline
    Chili Pepper's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,259

    Posted On:
    4/05/2013 9:17pm


     Style: Siling Labuyo Arnis

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by sazahko View Post
    They can work - they do force your body to burn fats preferentially as opposed to carbs. The problem is that your body (specifically, your brain) does need glucose to operate, so you have to watch your intake, lest you get your body having to convert lots of fats/proteins into carbs, which has certain unpleasant metabolic byproducts (ketones/ammonia). Your body's normally able to handle these byproducts, but it does merit monitoring if you go that route.
    Ketones aren't an unpleasant metabolic byproduct, they're the goal of the diet - glucose is one fuel the body can use, ketones are the other. Glucose is not a requirement.

    At the age of 47, I feel awesome on a ketonic diet. I've lost fat, have high energy levels, no insulin crash after a meal, joint pains (fingers, hips and knees) have disappeared, and most importantly for me, so has my asthma.

    Of course, YMMV, but it definitely works for me.
  3. sazahko is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    59

    Posted On:
    4/05/2013 9:30pm


     Style: Headbutts

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chili Pepper View Post
    Ketones aren't an unpleasant metabolic byproduct, they're the goal of the diet - glucose is one fuel the body can use, ketones are the other. Glucose is not a requirement.

    At the age of 47, I feel awesome on a ketonic diet. I've lost fat, have high energy levels, no insulin crash after a meal, joint pains (fingers, hips and knees) have disappeared, and most importantly for me, so has my asthma.

    Of course, YMMV, but it definitely works for me.
    Two of the three ketone bodies typically created in fatty acid metabolism are used as fuel, yes - the other is acetone, which is a waste product. Disposing of said waste product is usually the main point of concern here, but again, the body's usually capable of handling it.

    -Sazzy
  4. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    4/05/2013 11:44pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by sazahko View Post
    The problem is that your body (specifically, your brain) does need glucose to operate
    It can get about two thirds of its energy needs from ketones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.
  5. sazahko is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    59

    Posted On:
    4/05/2013 11:55pm


     Style: Headbutts

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss View Post
    It can get about two thirds of its energy needs from ketones.
    Chili Pepper essentially pointed that out. I'm aware that fatty acid catabolism supplies a large percentage of the body's energy needs, but I was under the impression (based on previous study) that certain operations require glucose exclusively, whether brought in directly or derived via gluconeogenesis from a different compound. I may be dead wrong, but that's how I've learned it and how I've seen it presented in texts and research on the subject. Always open to new evidence, though!

    -Sazzy
  6. Chili Pepper is offline
    Chili Pepper's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,259

    Posted On:
    4/06/2013 8:36am


     Style: Siling Labuyo Arnis

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by sazahko View Post
    Chili Pepper essentially pointed that out. I'm aware that fatty acid catabolism supplies a large percentage of the body's energy needs, but I was under the impression (based on previous study) that certain operations require glucose exclusively, whether brought in directly or derived via gluconeogenesis from a different compound. I may be dead wrong, but that's how I've learned it and how I've seen it presented in texts and research on the subject. Always open to new evidence, though!
    Outside of the initial hardcore period where you cut out carbs as much as possible (to exhaust the body's store of glycogen, and make it scramble for an alternative fuel source), keto calls for low carbs, not no carbs. So, there's still some glucose available.

    You sound like you're far better educated on the biochemistry in general, so I'm not going to push my luck ;)
  7. Cuddles is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Cuddleton
    Posts
    410

    Posted On:
    4/06/2013 12:58pm


     Style: being a fatty

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Now I have a question.

    Carbs are sugar basically. Just chains of them, correct? (like how amino acid chains are proteins)

    Couldn't you technically cut out carbs and instead have low/moderate-sugar, high-fat, high-protein diet? Of course, with all of the essential vitamins and minerals as well.

    In this type of diet, I'd assume you'd have to eat multiple times a day (like a bodybuilder) so that your metabolism is up and your body has a constant supply of energy (some amounts of sugar, fats).

    Am I correct?
  8. CrackFox is offline
    CrackFox's Avatar

    You have to work the look.

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Bat Country
    Posts
    3,077

    Posted On:
    4/06/2013 1:16pm

    supporting member
     Style: Judo, BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
    I'd assume you'd have to eat multiple times a day (like a bodybuilder) so that your metabolism is up
    Eating more frequently doesn't change your metabolism. Not directly anyway. If you eat more frequently you can train yourself to eat more over all, and feel hungry more quickly, which I suppose is a kind of change.
  9. Cuddles is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Cuddleton
    Posts
    410

    Posted On:
    4/06/2013 2:03pm


     Style: being a fatty

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CrackFox View Post
    Eating more frequently doesn't change your metabolism. Not directly anyway. If you eat more frequently you can train yourself to eat more over all, and feel hungry more quickly, which I suppose is a kind of change.
    Really? I read on bodybuilding.com that your metabolism is higher for a few hours after you eat which is why the bodybuilders eat throughout the day.
  10. sazahko is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    59

    Posted On:
    4/06/2013 2:07pm


     Style: Headbutts

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chili Pepper View Post
    Outside of the initial hardcore period where you cut out carbs as much as possible (to exhaust the body's store of glycogen, and make it scramble for an alternative fuel source), keto calls for low carbs, not no carbs. So, there's still some glucose available.

    You sound like you're far better educated on the biochemistry in general, so I'm not going to push my luck ;)
    That's kind of what I figured; the only times I've heard of people going absolutely zero-carbs is in cases of extreme (and incorrect) interpretation of Atkins and similar diets. Nutritionists I've studied with affectionately refer to such diets as "suicide diets". ;P

    Ha! I'm just glad I remember all this stuff - it's been a while since I've had to use it. Sounds like you get the ideas behind the diet, though, and it definitely sounds like it's working for you, which...is kinda the idea, after all. ; )

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuddles
    Now I have a question.

    Carbs are sugar basically. Just chains of them, correct? (like how amino acid chains are proteins)

    Couldn't you technically cut out carbs and instead have low/moderate-sugar, high-fat, high-protein diet? Of course, with all of the essential vitamins and minerals as well.

    In this type of diet, I'd assume you'd have to eat multiple times a day (like a bodybuilder) so that your metabolism is up and your body has a constant supply of energy (some amounts of sugar, fats).

    Am I correct?
    Technically, "carbohydrate" just means a compound made only of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. But you're right in that, when people talk about "carbs", they're usually referring to long chains of these molecules, like glucose (which is your standard 6-carbon carbohydrate). But if you had a glucose molecule by itself, you'd have what's called a "simple" sugar, which we typically just call "sugar".

    So, technically, you can't "cut out carbs" and still have sugar - they're the same thing, one's just longer than the other. What that means is it generally takes longer to digest. And CrackFox is right: More frequent meals won't up your metabolism by itself, as far as I'm aware. Part of the reason to eat more frequently is to regulate/control your intake better, and to keep from getting the peaks and valleys from insulin response. Getting your metabolism up is much more closely related to demand placed on the body - digestion hopefully isn't all that stressful, so it doesn't make a huge difference when we're talking gross basal metabolic rate.

    Again, I'm hardly an expert - this is all just from my studies and research. If anybody's got evidence/experience to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

    Does that help at all, Cuddles?

    -Sazzy
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 123 45 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.