Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

https://news.stonybrook.edu/newsroom/study-shows-low-carb-diet-may-prevent-reverse-age-related-effects-within-the-brain/

by rajnathani • 6 years ago

429 325 6 years ago

news.stonybrook.edu

blakesterz• 6 years ago

Here's the actual study, I'm always skeptical of University PR reports on studies:

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/02/1913042117

"Together, our results suggest that brain network destabilization may reflect early signs of hypometabolism, associated with dementia. Dietary interventions resulting in ketone utilization increase available energy and thus may show potential in protecting the aging brain."

technoplato2• 6 years ago

Definitely skeptical here as well, but the article seems to echo these sentiments fairly accurately. I’ll have to head the study though to say for sure.

tiffanyh• 6 years ago

This isn’t new. Doctors have seen a link between sugar (carbs) and Dementia / Alzheimer’s

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/551528/

tryptophan• 6 years ago

No, they saw a link between HIGH carbs in blood over long periods of time associated with dem\alz.

Eating normal ammounts of carbs isn't going to kill you, it's literally our main energy source.

technoplato2• 6 years ago

Coming from the guy that allegedly puts everyone to sleep during thanksgiving... no chance I’m listening to you

ethanbond• 6 years ago

The issue that people, at least Americans, run into is that consuming a “normal amount of carbs” is shockingly hard if you’re not consciously trying to avoid them. Foods that don’t really need sugar in them often have it in huge amounts because it delivers more flavor oomph (and separately delivers a dopamine hit). This is especially true in the aftermath of the war on fat because, shocker, fat tastes really good and when you remove it, food tastes worse. How do you make up for that? Add sugar.

throwaway_tech10• 6 years ago

Eating normal ammounts of carbs isn't going to kill you, it's literally our main energy source.

Its only the main energy source because its the main dietary intake. If you change your dietary intake consistent with dietary ketosis then carbs/glucose will not be the main energy source, ketones will become the main energy source.

Consider two things: 1) when in a fasted state, the body will begin to produce ketones and begins to run off of ketones instead of glucose (which our body can continue to make without eating carbs) suggesting ketones are the default energy source until we introduce dietary carbs that spike insulin; and 2) as the study notes ketones are the more efficient fuel source for the brain only because our modern diets carb laden and insulin spiking our brains are contantly using glucose instead of ketones.

superbrane• 6 years ago

I read some time ago about the Keto diet showing good results even in Alzheimer/dementia cases. Keto is not the same as low carb but it's close enough. Our molecular biology and internal chemical reactions are still areas of research in early phases. Just on a different topic, but in the same direction - last 10 years research discovered that immunity boosting has much better results in certain types of cancer than all the other non-surgery treatments (chemical or radiation).

toomuchtodo7• 6 years ago

Keto diet also has efficacy in managing epilepsy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361831/

nikolasavic• 6 years ago

The Ketogenic Diet as a Treatment Paradigm for Diverse Neurological Disorders https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321471/

Effects of ketone bodies in Alzheimer's disease in relation to neural hypometabolism, β‐amyloid toxicity, and astrocyte function https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jnc.13107

"Diet supplementation with ketone bodies (acetoacetate and β‐hydroxybuturate) or medium‐length fatty acids generating ketone bodies has consistently been found to cause modest improvement of mental function in Alzheimer's patients. It was suggested that the therapeutic effect might be more pronounced if treatment was begun at a pre‐clinical stage of the disease instead of well after its manifestation."

ropiwqefjnpoa• 6 years ago

Sugar, not fat is the killer. Incredible how for decades bad research and the likes of Ancel Keys and Phil Sokolof put the health of millions at risk.

toomuchtodo7• 6 years ago

Healthy diets (low carb, moderate fat/protein/fiber) don't generate outsized profits for the agriculture and processed food industry.

davidweatherall• 6 years ago

Couldn't you also argue that stakeholders who profit off low carb / sugar diets would also have a vested interest to push biased media about the benefits of low carb / fat diets?

logfromblammo2• 6 years ago

The USDA food pyramid favored grains because that is what the US farming could produce in greatest quantity at the time it was developed, thanks to machine-assisted farming tasks. Grains had enormous combine harvesters that could be operated by one person and harvest the whole field within a day. Produce like tomatoes were limited by the number of Mexicans and Central Americans that could be admitted by the guest worker program and could carry filled harvest bags to the collection point, for a few weeks at the right time of year.

Now machine harvesting and factory-style farming has expanded to some fruits and vegetables, using things like hydroponic lettuce tracks, horizontal trunk-shakers, vertical limb-shakers, and flexible-fingered robot arms. Or even when hand-harvested, the human pickers can follow behind a processing rig that trims, washes, sorts, and packs right there while rolling over the field, and transports the product out via portable conveyor belt.

Cauliflower, muskmelons, lettuces, culinary herbs, cabbages, and tree nuts have all benefited from harvest mechanization. Farms can even, at minimum, use a fleet of golf-cart-like vehicles, so that human harvesters can gather the crop from a seated position, rather than, standing, stooped, or crouched, and allow the vehicle carry the weight of the produce, thus making each human harvester more productive, even when the harvest still requires hands, eyes, and blades.

The machines, of course, represent a hefty barrier to entry from the capital investment, and favor mega-agribusinesses. Farms that can't hire enough cheap transient laborers or buy the specialized machinery are priced out of the industry.

But it does bring cheaper lower-carbohydrate foods to the consumer in greater quantity.

the_gastropod2• 6 years ago

This kind of conspiratorial thinking blows my mind. The claim is: big ag, with all their grain production, wants Americans to eat lots of grains, and corrupts government agencies to recommend such diets. The real healthy diets include lots of “protein” (meat), but “they don’t want you to know”...

What’s incredibly absurd about this is: where do you think the vast majority of the farmed grain goes? Feeding the cows, chickens, and pigs providing your “high protein” diets. If these “big ag” businesses did have any sway or disinformation campaigns, they’d absolutely be pushing the “eat more meat” narrative.

There’s no conspiracy. There aren’t any u-turns in nutritional science. The USDA guides are almost completely identical to WHO nutritional guides, and the guides for virtually every other modern country. Lots of whole grains, fruits, vegetables. Limit sugars, salt, and fats. As Michael Pollan says: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. That’s pretty much it. We complicate things so much with fear mongering and conspiracy thinking.

snarf21• 6 years ago

Well, to be fair, it was on purpose. The food pyramid in the US is created by the USDA, whose sole job is to produce and sell food at massive scale. Remember, they are the ones that subsidize crops and pay farmers not to grow corn and soybeans to keep the price up. If things were sensible, it would be produced by the Department of Health & Human Services. Fat may have more calories per gram than carbs but our real problem is insulin control and resistance and that is what those low fat diets turbo charge.

Spooky23• 6 years ago

Hindsight is 20/20.

Remember that in the era these policy positions were stood up, you were looking at big advances in medicine and concern about population and food supply.

The guys dying of heart attacks from eating fatty pork and beef at 50 got the message, unfortunately that message shifted the bad habits to bread and sugar.

collyw3• 6 years ago

Is this definite and scientific consensus?

Nutrition research seems to change as often as JavaScript framework of the month. I saw one Ted talk that essentially said "everyone is different and no rules apply to everyone".

pcdoodle• 6 years ago

I highly recommend watching this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y

(Dr Robert Lustsig)

wyager2• 6 years ago

Nutrition research seems to change as often as JavaScript framework of the month.

Nutrition “science”, like most health-related “sciences”, has approximately zero predictive power. A pretty reasonable strategy is to completely ignore whatever helpful advice the FDA or whomever is currently spouting (food pyramid!) and come up with some plausible first-principles model that matches available anecdata, like trying to match a plausible far-ancestral diet.

nscalf2• 6 years ago

The real issue is that nutrition science is bad and everyone has a book. Maybe 1 in 20 studies don't have obvious confounding factors that cause us to have no real base facts, but we can find a lot of correlation. Unfortunately, this is kind of the nature of the beast, nutrition science isn't bad because nutrition scientists are bad, but rather because it's so complicated it's tough to have very clean data.

Demonizing fats in favor of sugar as a country has allowed one of the biggest and longest population studies of its kind, and it's pretty obvious from the health of the population that very high calorie, sugar rich diets are overall bad for you (notice the wide strokes we have to make here).

Everyone is different, and no rules apply uniformly to everyone, but general rules do apply to everyone. Fructose in a caloric surplus is more damaging than glucose, for instance, but different bodies are more or less effective at mitigating this. Most people have some inflammation response to gluten, but for the vast majority of people, it's minor. Most things are a sliding scale, on one end is no measurable result, on the other end is acute response.

NOTE: I'm not interested in arguing about what the research says here. I know the pro-gluten party will come out in force, and I've made an enemy with the bread baker's union. I'm not a researcher, I'm just a nutrition hobbyist. There are much smarter people doing much more comprehensive breakdowns and having much more meaningful debates than I can, so go listen to them. Read the research yourself with a skeptical eye. Take all dietary advice with a grain of salt, and check the opposite side of the research, nutrition and biology is WEIRD.

Also, we're still learning very basic things that have massive impacts. No one was talking about "gut health" unless you had a chronic disease roughly 10 years ago. Microbiome didn't have much place in the conversation about health and nutrition, no crossfit people knew about resistant starches, etc.

hannob• 6 years ago

Is this definite and scientific consensus?

No. But some people like simple answers. Truth is: It's complicated and nutrition researchers are nowhere near any consensus on these questions.

JamesBarney• 6 years ago

The nutrition "research" you read on internet sites does. But don't confuse this with what nutrition researchers believe. What they believe does not change month to month but over years. And none of them believe things as simplistic as "sugar bad" or "fat bad".

rjyoungling• 6 years ago

I think this is mistaking correlation for causation. The problem with sugar is that it's often found in highly palatable foods that contain large quantities of fat and calories. If one monitors their caloric intake/outtake such that one is in a deficit or at maintenance not only do negative markers disappear, they improve. (Even on a high sugar diet.)

That's not to say: 'only eat lion candy bars and all is fine.' (One reason is that that would be too hard to adhere to since the volume of food is so low because they're so calorically dense. Low volume, even if calories are high, causes hunger. Another would be the lack of fiber, protein and micronutrients.)

But it does show that it's not sugar that's the problem but rather consistently being in a caloric surplus such that people become severely overweight.

Unfortunately, nutrition has become such a religious topic that it's become hard to have civil, scientific discussions. Instead, we stick to our tribe, demonize those who show flaws in our reasoning, and selectively search for research that aligns with what we already believe.

adrianmonk• 6 years ago

I actually think it might be all of at least three things:

1. Too much sugar has direct effects on the body, even for people at a totally healthy weight. Possibly including changing your appetite.

2. What you said: unhealthy foods very often contain sugar; therefore, foods high in sugar are more likely to be unhealthy in other ways too.

3. Sugar has calories but doesn't make you feel full. Too much sugar works against controlling your weight because people want a minimum amount of satiation.

The first point may seem wrong if you tend to think of the body as simply using sugar as fuel so that it only "pays attention" to the energy content. One thing that convinced me it's probably more complicated than that is a study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513783/) showing that if endurance athletes merely swish a sugary beverage in their mouth and then spit it out, it still improves their athletic performance. It can't be merely sweet; artificial sweeteners didn't have the same effect.

dnhz7• 6 years ago

This is a pithy statement belies the complexity of nutrition. Besides, researchers that linked heart disease to dietary fat didn't recommend that sugar be substituted in. And the diet heart hypothesis seems alive and well today; lowering blood cholesterol and saturated fat consumption is what health practitioners still recommend today.

dilap• 6 years ago

No one knows for sure yet. The most convincing theory I've heard is that it actually is fat...

But fat is an umbrella term. Saturated fat is (almost certainly) benign; eat as much (or as little) as you want.

Omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, on the other hand, are precursors to an important class of hormones called eicosanoids. If you eat too few, too much, or the wrong ratios, you will run into problems.

Our current diet is almost certainly way too high in omega-6 fats; the easy fix is just to stop eating vegetable oils.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492028/

blhack• 6 years ago

I don’t think it’s that simple. Sugar is much easier to farm en masse than fat is.

So switching to a sugar rich diet may have saved millions of people from starvation, but at the cost of the health of the individual.

So it is “better” for the aggregate, but worse for the individual.

throwaway_tech10• 6 years ago

The title is terrible, it should read ketosis/ketones may prevent, reverse age-related effects within the brain.

"Low carb" as the title currently reads does not necessarily result in ketosis and your body/brain running on ketones, which appears to be the scope of this study. There is more to dietary ketosis than low carb, just as an example carnivore or paleo diets are low carb, but those will generally not result in ketosis, in protein rich diets your body will convert the protein to glucose which will continue to be the primary fuel for the cells in the brain/body.

If you have never entered ketosis and experienced your brain running on ketones, I would suggest you experiment for yourself. I would say a minimum 2-3 months which should be enough time for your microbiome to change and your body/brain to adapt primarily running on ketones.

collyw3• 6 years ago

I was about to ask if intermittent fasting would have the same effects as I get the impression that its a healthier way of getting into ketosis.

(When I look, I don't see negative effects associated with IF, and I do with keto diets. The research changes a lot and the conclusions don't seem definitive, but I thought someone on here might have an educated opinion on the matter).

cagenut• 6 years ago

Your body goes into ketosis when it "runs out" of blood-sugar for long enough. It usually takes me 2 - 3 days of staying below 30 net grams (i'm a larger guy, for many people it requires going below 20).

IF can be a part of that, in terms of helping you to control your eating and making the time-period at the end of those 2 - 3 days happen maybe a half-day sooner, but fundamentally it doesn't change carbs are carbs.

Also you might find the relationship almost works the other way. Ketosis makes IF much easier. I haven't eaten breakfast in years. I don't even really consider that an IF regimen as much as like... once you get rid of the habit for a month or two you completely don't miss it and forget why you bothered.

ypcx3• 6 years ago

In my personal case I'm not really able to enter and maintain good ketosis levels without also fasting intermittently.

Intermittent fasting is key to enabling me to lower my caloric input because of the momentum of the fasting phase carried over into the eating phase, e.g. smaller stomach and more effective metabolism. I currently fast about 12 hours per day (including the sleep phase), which doesn't sound like much but with the lowered caloric input it's actually pretty good. I can go longer easily when the circumstances demand it, and after crossing 16 hours I actually stop experiencing hunger completely. I plan to extend the fasting periods in the future, if easy and convenient.

As for whether ketosis is necessary - I believe I would not be able to fast intermittently without it, or at least not comfortably, which is necessary for any lifestyle change to be sustainable.

I'm not aware of any negative effects of being in ketosis for prolonged periods of time, and quite the opposite. I don't crave sugary foods anymore, and I dislike anything with even a trace of sweetness. I was surprised to discover how good the body really is at detecting what food is good for it, once in ketosis.

My main food sources currently are avocado, egg, tahini and drinks based on almond or walnut milk. I'm also using vitamin and mineral supplements, mostly in fluid forms. I'm 42 and I wish I had known about keto as early in my life as possible, not when I was forced to explore it due to declining health. Ketosis gives you a stable level of energy through the day and allows you to fully focus on life and the tasks at hand.

koolba• 6 years ago

Vigorous exercise, in particular sustained cardio, is the surest way to burn through your glycogen stores. Combined with intermittent fasting and a near-zero carb diet, it’s the fastest way to resume ketosis.

wirrbel8• 6 years ago

I do water fasting (rather "bone broth fasting" like Dr. Jason Fung advocates in his talks on youtube and in his books), and also have done and will do keto when I am not fasting.

I am not quite sure about the "health" class. So roughly speaking I am obese and I do think with every 3 kilograms I loose per month, I am healthier. So keto as a tool for loosing weight is really without a doubt healthy. The correlations between being overweight and associated risks are MUCH stronger than the correlations between food and associated risks.

Now, if you dig deeper into books on keto and fasting by doctors, you see how fragile certain conclusions are that are now the consensus opinion in nutritional science. I am a data-scientist, trained biophysicist and I know I am not an epidemiologist and not a biologist, but I can tell "creative statistics" apart from not-suspicious ones, and a lot of central nutritional science studies that triggered the fat-fear seem to be highly deficient from a statistical perspective, hardly proving any causality.

So I tend to be rather sceptical about dietary advice after 1950 unless it has been (a) shown in humans and not just in experiments with animals (b) based on studies that do interventions, i.e. change the behavior of humans rather than just surveying or asking what people do.

What I also find fascinating is, how the fasting community and the keto community often reach similar conclusion while actually being kind of different communities advocating for different "resolutions".

Anyway, what I was trying to say: If keto and fasting helps the normal weight range at steady 3kg/month, I do think it is healthy for me, when I am in a normal weight range, the priorities may change from "weight loss is really important" to other aspects.

jvanderbot• 6 years ago

Yes. Perhaps stronger effects w IF, according to this.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fasting-diet-ketosis-brain-b...

hellofunk2• 6 years ago

If you have never entered ketosis and experienced your brain running on ketones, I would suggest you experiment for yourself.

How do you do that? If the low-carb diet isn't enough, what is?

CuriouslyC• 6 years ago

Fasting

kaibee• 6 years ago

Low carb is generally considered to be under 100g carbs/day. Ketosis requires under 20g carbs/day.

agumonkey4• 6 years ago

isn't ketosis very subtle to maintain otherwise it can harmful effects ?

PaulHoule• 6 years ago

People confuse it with ketoacidosis, which is very dangerous. Ketosis is benign.

stjohnswarts2• 6 years ago

No, like other people have said that's ketoacidosis. Both involve some ketones, but one is healthy and natural(ketosis) the other is very bad and you should talk to your doctor about it (or he is most likely the one to find it) that is ketoacidosis.

wyager2• 6 years ago

Everyone I know who is on a carnivore diet has a high enough fat:protein ratio to stay in ketosis most of/all the time. The value of that seems to be pretty common wisdom among carnivores.

throwaway_tech10• 6 years ago

It is possible, I have done it myself eating a lot of eggs and fatty red meat. Also, in my case I was also already in ketosis for an extended period of time, meaning my microbiome and cells were primed for ketosis.

That said I have also done carnivore and also not been in ketosis, which I think is probably the norm for most people on carnivore because the protein/fat ratios aren't right.

The commonality in ketosis carnivore and non-ketosis carnivore is removal of refined sugar/carbs which means no insulin spikes, which means steady levels of energy without crashing.

1MachineElf• 6 years ago

Unless one has too much lean meat. The body will convert excess protien into carbs. It's better to stick with fatty cuts only.

text702• 6 years ago

I am having trouble agreeing with the statement that "...your body will convert the protein to glucose..."

Could you elaborate on that logic?

dnhz7• 6 years ago

"The production of glucose from glucogenic amino acids involves these amino acids being converted to alpha keto acids and then to glucose, with both processes occurring in the liver. This mechanism predominates during catabolysis, rising as fasting and starvation increase in severity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucogenic_amino_acid

pc86• 6 years ago

This[0] is a good starting point. Dietary protein can readily be converted to glucose in the body and either stored as fat or used as energy.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636610/

Dumblydorr• 6 years ago

The body can use protein to make glucose, it only will switch into that mode under low carbohydrate conditions like fasting or very low carb diets. It's less energy efficient of a pathway though.

johnkpaul2• 6 years ago

This is a very well understood pathway in biochemistry called gluconeonesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

_vn5r• 6 years ago

gluconeogenesis

jnwatson2• 6 years ago

A few parts of your body can't operate on ketones, so there's a backup mechanism to produce glucose from protein (from muscle breakdown, if necessary) called gluconeogenesis.

However, There's no evidence I've see that gluconeogenesis can kick you out of ketosis. As far as I know, gluconeogensis is demand-driven, not supply-driven, so there won't be any extra glucose running around for your ketone-consuming cells to use, regardless of your protein intake.

Disclaimer: I'm not a nutritionist or biologist.

letharion3• 6 years ago

While several people refer to gluconeogenesis, to the best of my knowledge we _can_ make glucose from protein, but rarely do in practice. I have yet to see anyone convincingly show that we do.

Also check out diet doctors take on it which refers to actual studies. "Does protein adversely affect blood sugar?" https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/protein

consp• 6 years ago

I have but in my case it is not caused by continued low carbon diet and should be avoided and is not so nice due all the side effects it has. Everyone who takes any form of diabetic medication should ask their physician about the consequences as it might interfere with the medication or require adjustment and can cause acidosis even if you have normal glucose levels. On the other hand, especially for type 2 diabetics, there is some indication it might be beneficial (if done properly and coordinated).

wirrbel8• 6 years ago

Ketoacidosis is of course a medical condition and not something one seeks out.

Ketosis is fundamentally different, your bodies mode of metabolizing (body) fat in the state of fasting, which can also be provoked when eating a high-fat moderate protein and <20-30g carbohydrates diet.

And yes, asking a physician may be a good idea if you suffer under certain conditions. Sometimes it may be valuable to find a physician that has knowledge on keto-diets, because that's not really something every physician learns about as a dietary choice.

brightball2• 6 years ago

I always thought it wasn't recommended to stay in ketosis for more than 2 weeks at a time?

wirrbel8• 6 years ago

I cannot say that it isn't recommended, because recommendations are quite diverse. But I haven't seen that recommendation before.

Orthodox nutritionists would definitely advice against ketosis, potentially they may be fine with fasting-induced ketosis every once in a while (depends a bit on how they were trained).

People who embrace a low-carb ketosis-inducing diet (aka "Keto diet") or embrace multi-day fasting don't consider it harmful really. For fasting there are of course certain limits but not due to ketosis but for other effects of not eating (refeed effect, general weight-considerations, etc. but there have been overweight people successfully fasting for months under supervision).

teraku2• 6 years ago

For my understanding this is mostly attributed to insuline resistance vs sensitivity. As you get older and overexposed to sugar, your resistance raises and in order to reverse a lot of the internal inflammations your body has produced from over-intake of sugar you need to force ketosis and burn calories with a low-carb diet. This in turn helps reduce internal fat and repair organ functions, fundamentally restoring hormone production and refreshing your brain as well.

It does not mean that carbs in general are toxic, nor that this diet is recommended for everybody! Diets are very personal, it just becomes more and more common because sugar is added everywhere, people are getting older and older and obesity is a global problem. As such, most people are very insulin resistant and work better with low-carb/high-fat diets.

This headline is one of the reasons there is so much misinformation in food and diets

skizm• 6 years ago

How does working out at a high intensity work when in a state of Ketosis? I lift weights and/or do HIIT 5x per week and occasionally add running on top of that. I've always been weary of going low carb or trying a keto diet because I feel like I just won't have the energy to continue my training regimen at its current intensity. The typical advice is to eat your allocated carbs 1-2 hours prior to your workout, however I feel like by not getting the right amount of carbs post-workout I'm basically wasting my time in the gym at best, and at worst asking for an injury due to not being able to recover completely in time for the next workout.

Thoughts?

sputknick• 6 years ago

Not the author, but I have experience with this. For me it takes about a week of slugishness before my body adjusts. Once I'm adapted, my performance is actually better. This goes for heavy weights, low weight/high rep weights, and cardio.

ebg133• 6 years ago

How does working out at a high intensity work when in a state of Ketosis?

I've done this. You get tired much faster, you will not be able to sprint for nearly as long, your maximum lift significantly decreases, you hit the muscle fatigue point (can't lift again unless you lower the weight) very quickly.

The usual solution among keto lifters is to have a carbload cheat day once per week _or_ to carb spike with I think (it's been a while) pure glucose syrup a measured amount just before your workout according to how much you think you'll actually use during the workout. The cheat day in practice works pretty well, because if you're slamming your body at the gym every day you can get back into ketosis very quickly after the initial induction phase is done, so you end up with a couple of days of keto per week but not the full week.

wirrbel8• 6 years ago

You have a very stable energy supply on keto. I am on keto right now and went for a run in the morning. For lifting weights and muscle building I am not quite sure whether I can give advice, but have a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/ketogains/ and the subreddits community as this subreddit is focused on working out with keto.

teraku2• 6 years ago

Don't go low-carb. There is no need, it's not unhealthy. Especially if you are sporty (as it sounds).

The current state of affairs is: If you are insulin resistant (either because of genetics, obesity, whatever) then having a low-carb high fat diet is better for you. If your insulin resistance is high, then your pancreas produces much more insulin, meaning your cells will start storing energy instead of using it up. If this keeps up for a long period, your fat tissues, which are supposed to be your fat/energy storage, will fill up and your body (or rather the particles transporting the transformed sugar from the liver) will start sticking to your organs. This starts inflammations and makes your organs weaker, and in turn also raising your insulin resistance. And these malfunctions also spread to the brain and can cause alzheimer and the like. The exact chain of effects is not yet confirmed, so from here on it's a lot of speculation. But if you now are trying to lose weight, and you just reduce calories, but keeping a "high-carb/low-fat" diet, then you will be hungry. Because either you have too little protein to feed yourself, or you eat enough protein and you automatically eat too many carbs again, producing more and more insulin. This is how high-fat diets come in handy, as they don't spur liver activity and don't impact insulin as much. This in turn means you can reach ketosis, starting to work the fat on your organs (which is a lot more dangerous then some fat in fat tissues like your belly). Your body will recover, inflammation will go away and your insulin sensitivity goes up again (unless you are genetically diabetic). And with a healthy body your brain can also recover.

The studies for this are still coming in, but I find this explanation very logic and even this study, although the article is weirdly phrased, plays into it.

Some remarks at the end: - If you do a lot of sports, your muscles use energy even without insulin - Glucose is spread through the body, while fructose is directly converted to fat (tissue) - Sport also increases insulin sensitivity - Diets are very personal, try out things for yourself and see how it works! - Protein is also increasing insulin (since protein intake signals the body to start storing energy, i. e. protein into muscle cells)

ravenstine2• 6 years ago

Depends on the diet. Low carb on its own can work because you can eat between 20 and 50 grams of carbs in a day, but ketosis is limited.(which might be okay depending on one's goals)

Keto is shit for working out, in my personal opinion. Some people claim they can have effective workouts on keto, but I hate it, and a lot of others have a hard time having energy when training on keto. Keto is good for weight loss, and I lost 60 lbs in 5 months doing keto, but it's total crap for building muscle, in my experience.

The best compromise, in my experience, is fasting. I'm talking ideally 48 hours between meals. I'll keep it short because I've been spamming threads about this topic recently; because fasting forces the body to solely burn through its glycogen stores, and then body fat once that runs out, ketosis becomes easier to achieve even if there are some carbs in meals, and the presence of carbs in meals provides glycogen for when you workout and train your muscles. I believe this is needed, especially for HIIT. In my experience, you can eat a modest amount of carbs when breaking a fast and still manage to get back into ketosis(fat burning mode!) within a few days. It totally outperforms keto in that it often takes people several days, possibly weeks, to get into deep ketosis.

That said, a low carb, but not necessarily keto, diet can work for someone doing HIIT. Everyone's body is different. A person may find that they want more carbs in order to be effective in the gym, but if they're trying to get lean, then that can compromise their goal, in which case they should reduce their eating frequency a la fasting. A person who is either building muscle or maintaining body composition may not need to do a low carb diet at all.

throwaway_tech10• 6 years ago

I run marathons and prefer running in ketosis. In ketosis I will follow a long run with some protein for muscle recovery with fats just to maintain ratios rather than carbs to refill depleted glucose stores.

For lifting/HIIT training ketosis may not be ideal. I have done it and its fine, basically I swap whey for hemp protein powder and continue using creatine post workout.

I think for most people unless they are competing or trying to gain mass they would really like the results of ketosis and lifting. You will lean out (both fat loss and less water retention) and maintain muscle mass, don't be afraid of losing your gains. On the down side the adjustment period will probably be a little longer/harder than a relatively inactive person and initially you will likely notice a decline in energy in the gym, but it will be temporary (again your body is learning to use ketones as primary fuel source and that takes time). That said once you adjust you won't find any trouble lifting heavy or running sprints, in fact you will probably be able to go longer. One benefit you really notice is lack of inflammation and soreness following workouts, in my experience the body recovers faster, though this is still about the actual food you consume (healthy omega 3s and green leafy vegetables) and not some automatic benefit of ketosis.

Enginerrrd• 6 years ago

It seems people have pretty individualized responses to this. In general, the research shows decreases in performance except for endurance events. Personally, I found my recovery was great on keto. Better than normal even. I was doing a strength cycle so my weights were increasing at the time and I was getting stronger. I actually felt better in the gym, and I lift pretty heavy. A lot of the aches and pains in my joints seemed to go away. Downsides: my gut felt weird, and you have work hard at getting adequate fiber and stuff. Also, it's hard to eat socially.

I was eating a higher protein diet than usually considered keto, but urinalysis confirmed ketosis.

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

I think it really depends on how long you've been in ketosis, and how well adapted you body is to running on fat.

At first you will absolutely have less energy, but it seems like the more fat-adapted you are, the more energy you'll have. At some point it seems like you actually have more energy to work out.

lhl4• 6 years ago

There is a keto adaptation [1] period of at least 6-8 weeks where you might take a hit, but there are several studies that show that it's generally not a concern.

Cipryan, Lukas, Daniel J. Plews, Alessandro Ferretti, Phil B. Maffetone, and Paul B. Laursen. “Effects of a 4-Week Very Low-Carbohydrate Diet on High-Intensity Interval Training Responses.” Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 17, no. 2 (May 14, 2018): 259–68.

Greene, David A., Benjamin J. Varley, Timothy B. Hartwig, Phillip Chapman, and Michael Rigney. “A Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Weight Without Compromising Performance in Powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting Athletes.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print (October 17, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002904.

Paoli, Antonio, Keith Grimaldi, Dominic D’Agostino, Lorenzo Cenci, Tatiana Moro, Antonino Bianco, and Antonio Palma. “Ketogenic Diet Does Not Affect Strength Performance in Elite Artistic Gymnasts.” Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 9 (July 26, 2012): 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-9-34.

Kephart, Wesley C., Coree D. Pledge, Paul A. Roberson, Petey W. Mumford, Matthew A. Romero, Christopher B. Mobley, Jeffrey S. Martin, et al. “The Three-Month Effects of a Ketogenic Diet on Body Composition, Blood Parameters, and Performance Metrics in CrossFit Trainees: A Pilot Study.” Sports 6, no. 1 (January 9, 2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6010001.

If you're interested in the topic of human performance and ketosis, I enjoy Volek's talks - here's one from a relatively recent Jumpstart event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeS_dhM8dsY

Anecdotally, I find my workout recovery to be much better on keto/fasting diet, but all my markers (and overall inflammation) has improved so much and I'm being mindful of other aspects like stress, sleep, etc that it's hard to necessarily pin down to one cause.

[1] https://blog.virtahealth.com/keto-adapted/

wpietri2• 6 years ago

I confess I don't measure ketosis, and it sounds like we do different sorts of workout. But I do the intermittent fasting variant known as eTRF; I generally eat 7 am - 1 pm. I was worried about how that would interact with my runs, which I usually do in the morning before eating. Enough people online were positive about it that I tried it out and it has been great. On recent Sundays I've done 2-hour runs with little or no food. My times improved and I felt amazing. And the meal after running? Fantastic!

timbit422• 6 years ago

Sami Inkonen and his SO rowed to Hawaii on a keto diet but were fat adapted first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

tokamak-teapot4• 6 years ago

I do similar exercise and when I started keto 8 months ago I had a dip in performance for about 3 weeks.

I do a similar set of exercises on the same day/time every week and it ends with 30 seconds of burpees.

Prior to going on keto I was doing 16 burpees in that 30 seconds. After the first week I was down to twelve. After a couple more weeks I was back to 16 - and two weeks after that I was on 17. I’m now on 18.

I’ve gone from 103kg to 88kg in that time, so it seems likely the weight loss has been a (or the) factor in the improved performance.

rtkaratekid2• 6 years ago

I’ve done it. I got extremely ripped and looked great, but actual performance suffered and I started feeling pretty terrible. I like how carbs solve those problems for me. However, if I’m doing 6+ hour efforts, I just eat fats and around hour 7 or 8 I’m still burning hot when I used to burn out when I was feeding with carbs.

simonebrunozzi• 6 years ago

Any specific reading on how to get into ketosis that you would suggest? Something that you find scientifically sound?

lanternslight5• 6 years ago

Join the CSK group on FB.

projektfu2• 6 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq

whiddershins• 6 years ago

I would like a citation on the protein to glucose claim.

My understanding is the body would much rather run on ketones than go down that path.

ebg133• 6 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

lanternslight5• 6 years ago

No citation, but If you think about it it makes sense: is you have no fat left, and aren't ingesting enough calories, your body would rather burn muscle than organs.

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

My understanding is that the body will convert protein to Glucose when needed, but it is very carefully regulated, and will prefer ketones for cells that can run on them. However, some cells require glucose, and gluconeogenesis is important for that if you're eating low carb/in ketosis.

rconti2• 6 years ago

Anything that requires me to radically change my diet to experiment with myself "just to see", that takes a minimum of 2-3 months, is a hard pass. It's just not that interesting to most of us for a vaguely hand-wavey possibly useful experiment.

ryanSrich• 6 years ago

Full-on keto may not be worth it, but I would highly suggest removing most carbs from your diet (<= 30g per meal). You'll feel completely different within 5 days. This is especially noticeable after the age of 30. I have no scientific backing or research for this, but I've had a number of friends and family make this small change and every single one has not gone back. It's not even that difficult if you already have a somewhat healthy diet.

wpietri2• 6 years ago

I think that's fine; not everybody has to be an early adopter of everything. If what you're doing is working for you, keep doing it!

But for people who feel vaguely but persistently like things aren't working anymore, I really recommend experimenting with diet. I've tried a variety of things over the years, and have ended up with a combination that has made my life hugely better: better mood, more even-tempered, much more energetic, and physical exercise has gotten a lot more fun. I recently went back to my old diet for a week and felt like warmed-over garbage.

But yes, expect it will take 1-3 months for your body and habits to really adapt. E.g., when I quit refined carbs, I experience 1-3 weeks of withdrawal symptoms. Headaches, low energy, enormously cranky. And it's even longer for the habits to really get established, so I stop feeling like I'm missing out on the old things.

bad_user13• 6 years ago

If you have never entered ketosis and experienced your brain running on ketones, I would suggest you experiment for yourself. I would say a minimum 2-3 months which should be enough time for your microbiome to change and your body/brain to adapt primarily running on ketones.

I've been on Keto for about 8 months (before giving up), measuring my blood ketones and being in deep ketosis between meals (over 2 mmol/L). I've also seen values going over 4 mmol/L.

In spite of popular belief, nothing happens, there's no magic at the end of that rainbow for most people. If you felt anything different, there's a high likelihood it was just self suggestion, aka placebo.

Also most people are in ketosis before eating breakfast in the morning, because the liver's glycogen is partially depleted overnight, enough for the liver to produce significant ketones. And nothing will make you enter ketosis faster like skipping a meal or two (aka starvation ketosis). People with a healthy metabolism cycle in and out of ketosis all the time.

Also the idea that your microbiome has to change and your body/brain to adapt for you to feel any better and that it takes months ... is a complete myth. Your body takes only mere days to adjust to any dietary strategy. Also the dreaded keto flu is just dehydration from all the lost glycogen, which pulls a lot of water on its way out.

spion2• 6 years ago

This depends a lot on the individual. I would suggest it to anyone who often has post-meal slumps, for example - its likely to work wonders for them.

sizzle2• 6 years ago

Why did you give up? How we your energy levels? Did you drop weight easily?

throwaway_tech10• 6 years ago

Also most people are in ketosis before eating breakfast in the morning, because the liver's glycogen is partially depleted overnight

This is true...but it gets to my point, just because your body begins breaking down fat and producing ketones (as shown in your tests) does not mean your cells have adapted to using ketones as fuel, that requires the body to adapt.

Based on your numbers you were clearly breaking down fat and making ketones, but based on your not feeling any different I'd say your cells never adapted to ketones as the primary fuel source. This is the same for people depleting their glucose stores over night, yes they are in "ketosis", meaning they are breaking down fat and producing ketones, but that does not mean their cells are efficiently running on ketones.

My guess with you, not knowing more, is you are pretty inactive. At least I would be surprised to learn you engage in lets say an hour of cardio 4-5 times a week. I am not saying keto is the end all be all, or that everyone prefers it, but I have not met anyone who does aerobic cardio and experimented with Ketosis and not experienced a different (again good or bad). On the other hand I have met many people who tried Keto and never noticed any difference, like you describe, and the commonality seems to be they were inactive.

LanceH• 6 years ago

So anecdote extrapolated to everyone and anyone who disagrees is just imagining it.

Not being hungry until meal time? Placebo effect caused me to not want a nap in the afternoon? Did I imagine the 60 pounds weight loss, too?

ctoscano• 6 years ago

most people are in ketosis before eating breakfast in the morning, because the liver's glycogen is partially depleted overnight, enough for the liver to produce significant ketones. And nothing will make you enter ketosis faster like skipping a meal or two

There are two claims here that are pretty important and contrary to my understanding and experience: 1) Liver is depleted after usual sleep 2) Fasting is the fastest way to enter ketosis

Even when practicing a very low carb diet your liver is "topped up" through gluconeogenesis while you are sleeping.

If by ketosis you mean the body is producing enough ketones to power itself than the fastest way I know of kickstarting that process is not having carbs for 6 hours then going for a run or lifting heavy weights.

You don't need to starve yourself, you just need to put your body in a scenario where the energy demands overtake the available energy in the form of blood glucose (and strain the stores in the muscle and liver).

runjake2• 6 years ago

You're spending a lot of time in here making accusations of myths and placebos, but none of your counters offer any form of citation.

You'd make much stronger points if you included citations. If your points are in fact correct, they would be highly useful.

com2kid5• 6 years ago

There is plenty of work showing that physical endurance increases after extended periods on keto. Athletes have carefully tracked their performance numbers day by day and demonstrated real changes.

And as someone who participates in activities that require large amounts of endurance, I know on keto my ability to perform for extended periods of time is higher. These aren't "I think" numbers, they are "polar heart rate monitor strapped to my chest" numbers.

The very nature of keto leads to improved endurance, fat is a much more plentiful energy source than glucose, it may be less efficient (lifting heavy on keto is a well known problem), but it /never/ runs out. If someone is doing an activity that doesn't cause excessive lactic acid build up or complete muscle fatigue, then a keto will give an endurance advantage.

Jach• 6 years ago

Your body is composed of many hierarchical control systems. Some of them have feedback loops that imply minimum adaptation times longer than days. For a dietary related one (keto), one such adaptation is liver efficiency to produce fewer ketones + kidney efficiency to filter out uric acid. People who never have had gout but go on a keto diet sometimes get gout flareups because of a uric acid spike from the diet change, and it takes a number of weeks for uric acid levels to subside: https://www.virtahealth.com/blog/keto-adapted

crazygringo2• 6 years ago

Your last paragraph is just unbelievably flat-out wrong. Maybe you didn't suffer from keto flu, but it can last for a couple weeks to a couple months (my case) and has zero to do with dehydration.

You're literally retraining your body to efficiently burn stored body fat when it never had to much before. This takes time. The idea that it happens in days is laughable, as is the idea that your microbiome adjusts that quickly.

Please don't spread blatant misinformation.

_brnu• 6 years ago

I actually agree with most all of your posts. The one big difference, though, in my opinion, is that when adapted to a very low carbohydrate diet, it's actually easier for me to not eat. That's it. To me, it's the lone advantage. It's not about the palatability of the low-carb meals. It's that I just seem to be less hungry. I can skip a meal and it's no big deal. When I'm higher carb, missing a meal takes a way bigger toll.

One other thing I'd offer -- for long endurance activities at higher heart rates (e.g., cycling in zone 4 for more than an hour), you absolutely have to supplement with carbs. You can go a long time in Zone 3 on a low carb diet, but as exertion increases, you burn through those sugar stores and bonk. I've tested this repeatedly. In case it's helpful to others, you can consume quite a bit of sugar on a hard ride and be right back in ketosis hours later as your muscles take up the glucose first.

tracker13• 6 years ago

It's also a large part electrolyte imbalance from some dehydration... drinking more water with salts can help a lot. It isn't magic, but can help with glucose control without medication, or without as much... eating enough protein, which keto people tend to get plenty, also has higher satiety, which can lead to eating less. Going to 1-2 meals a day will have mostly the same effects.

I think keto and carnivore are really better depending on one's specific metabolic and/or autoimmune issues. For most people, eating less processed crap (junk/fast food and trans fats particularly), less modern grains, less seed oils. Instead, having a well balanced diet which imho should include at least eggs, butter and fish is a great starting point.

orange8• 6 years ago

Sorry it did not work for you as an individual, but turning that around to say that anyone else with a more positive experience is just placebo is a bit of a logical fallacy. Why do you think your own personal experience should be the one source of truth for the whole universe? Don't you know the 7 billion people alive all have unique bodies that respond to things differently?

Have you tried anything else health-wise (diets, medicine, exercise plan etc)after Keto? And is it working? If it is, its most likely just a placebo and not really beneficial in of itself. Thats according to the crux of your argument: if something works, its very likely just a placebo.

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

In spite of popular belief, nothing happens, there's no magic at the end of that rainbow for most people. If you felt anything different, there's a high likelihood it was just self suggestion, aka placebo.

I absolutely noticed a change, and there's no way it's just a placebo. The change I've noticed is that I don't get hungry nearly as quickly as I do when I'm eating carbs, and I don't get "hangry" anymore, either. I do still get hungry, but it's a much more mild effect.

I also used to get headaches quite frequently, especially if I waited too long to eat. That has also stopped since I started doing keto.

Also the idea that your microbiome has to change and your body/brain to adapt for you to feel any better and that it takes months ... is a complete myth. Your body takes only mere days to adjust to any dietary strategy. Also the dreaded keto flu is just dehydration from all the lost glycogen, which pulls a lot of water on its way out.

Is this something you have a source for, or just something you believe?

Also most people are in ketosis before eating breakfast in the morning, because the liver's glycogen is partially depleted overnight, enough for the liver to produce significant ketones. And nothing will make you enter ketosis faster like skipping a meal or two (aka starvation ketosis). People with a healthy metabolism cycle in and out of ketosis all the time.

I'm not sure I buy this. Usually if I've been eating carbs for a while, and try to get back into ketosis, it takes me a day or two. If you don't eat for 16 hours, then sure, maybe you enter ketosis near the end, but most people don't go that long without food.

cies2• 6 years ago

Afaik there is no top athlete on keto when performing: they are all on high-carb.

Keto is the "burn your body fat" mode. Staying in keto by eating high fat low carb is a trick. Humans never had such easy access to fats as today. Before we made settlements we got a large part of our calories from fruits (which contain short carbs), not unlike the other primates.

amanaplanacanal3• 6 years ago

Before we made settlements we got a large part of our calories from fruits (which contain short carbs), not unlike the other primates.

This can't possibly be true. Agriculture is only 12,000 years old or so, but people have been living in Europe for much longer than that. I'm in North America, and there are no fruits available locally for six months out of the year. Before agriculture people must have been living mostly from hunting.

DrScump2• 6 years ago

You know the dietary practices of "all" top athletes?

Athletes in sports favoring fast-twitch muscle presumably wouldn't do keto, but endurance athletes, sure.

The SF Giants' Hunter Pence is a vocal keto practitioner.

teilo4• 6 years ago

It is true that ketosis is more than low carb, but Gluconeogensis has absolutely nothing to do with it. There is a lot of wrong information out there about GNG.

GNG is an on-demand production of glucose, and absolutely does NOT kick the body out of ketosis, or cause the brain to run on glucose. GNG provides enough glucose for the tissues that cannot run on ketones (such as the kidneys). Without GNG, ketosis would not be possible. In fact, ketones regulate GNG, and prevent it from exceeding the needed maintenance levels.

Furthermore, GNG runs at mostly a constant level, does not increase with protein intake, and is at that constant level even when the body is not in ketosis.

What prevent ketosis in stubborn cases? Insulin resistance. To overcome insulin resistance it takes a strict low-carb regime paired with moderate fat intake, and lowering of stress. The process can be dramatically sped up with intermittent fasting.

amanaplanacanal3• 6 years ago

Thank you! I see claims all the time that eating too much protein will kick you out of ketosis, without any actual science to back it up.

throwaway_tech10• 6 years ago

GNG is an on-demand production of glucose, and absolutely does NOT kick the body out of ketosis, or cause the brain to run on glucose.

I never said GNG kicks people out of ketosis, I said protein to fat ratios will prohibit ketosis. Yes, in ketosis your body continues to produce minimal amounts of glucose, I never said anything to the contrary.

However, GNG has a lot to do with ketosis vis-a-vis protein to fat ratios, protein to fat intake can not be to high or it will kick you out of ketosis because of GNG

Furthermore, GNG runs at mostly a constant level, does not increase with protein intake, and is at that constant level even when the body is not in ketosis.

If you over consume fat or carbs, they get stored as fat in fat cells. What happens when you over consume protein? Protein can not be stored as fat, it must first be converted to glucose, which the body will try to burn before it is stored in fat cells. This is why a high protein to fat ratio carnivore diet will prohibit ketosis or kick one out of ketosis, unlike a high fat to protein carnivore diet (again I never said the body stops producing glucose from protein in that situation, but the glucose production is minimal in ketosis because of the ratios and ketones remain the primary fuel source).

To overcome insulin resistance it takes a strict low-carb regime paired with moderate fat intake, and lowering of stress.

While generally true and correct, I can even come up with examples where this breaks down...whey oxalate being a perfect example. Whey oxalate will typically have 25g of protein and may have as low as 1 gram of carbs, but Whey oxalate will spike insulin in most people and throw most people out of ketosis.

uberduper5• 6 years ago

in protein rich diets your body will convert the protein to glucose which will continue to be the primary fuel for the cells in the brain/body.

This is completely incorrect. Gluconeogenesis is stimulated by the pancreas releasing glucagon in response to low blood sugar. GNG happens in everyone regardless of diet when blood sugar is too low. It has nothing at all to do with the amount of dietary protein you consume.

GNG happens in people in ketosis pretty constantly without stopping ketosis.

tejohnso3• 6 years ago

Noted that the underlying cause for the improvement comes from ketones. This should indicate that intermittent fasting would also show similar results. Low carb diet, keto diet, intermittent fasting, they're all just different ways to switch the fuel source from glucose to ketones.

newscracker• 6 years ago

Would a time restricted feeding type of intermittent fasting, with a 16/8 schedule, really result in the production of ketones? I thought that it would take about a day and a half or longer to exhaust carbs and start the switch to ketones. Then it’s only the longer fasts (like 5/2 days) that could help.

collyw3• 6 years ago

If you pee gets more yellow in that time period (I think) its indicative of ketosis. If anyone is more knowledgeable than me please chime in.

tejohnso3• 6 years ago

I'm no expert, but from my vast knowledge gained through the internet[1], it seems that ketosis starts at around the 12 hour mark. But I think it would depend on how glucose saturated you already are.

[1] I like Dr. Berg's videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwOreYDPCM and anything from Peter Attia https://peterattiamd.com/

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

The easiest way to tell is to actually test your blood: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0789G8KTG/

jniedrauer• 6 years ago

Wouldn't just plain calorie restricting also result in ketosis at night? The way I read the headline is "Not overeating might make you healthier"

tejohnso3• 6 years ago

I think it would depend on how close you are to ketosis before you start calorie restriction. And how severely you restrict. And probably a dozen other variables.

There's a lot of exciting research going on in this area but I believe that what you're hinting at is true. All of the things we know we should do, actually work. For whatever reason. Don't eat too much, go without sometimes, when you do eat, don't eat garbage, exercise on occasion, etc.

matwood2• 6 years ago

This should indicate that intermittent fasting

I came to comment the same thing. First an aside that I agree with Peter Attia that IF is a confusing term, and instead Time Restricted Feeding (TRF) should be used. The current thought seems to be that many of the benefits from TRF (ie, skipping breakfast) come from causing the body to start generating ketones.

koboll• 6 years ago

I'd be cautious if you're doing TRF by skipping breakfast.

Interestingly, TRF improved weight loss and cardiometabolic endpoints—such as insulin levels, insulin sensitivity, and blood pressure—when participants ate early or in the middle of the day [18,19,41,42,43,44,45], but worsened cardiometabolic health or had null effects when participants ate late in the day [46,47,48].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6627766/

IIRC subsequent studies have found that digestion interferes with sleep quality, which negates the benefits of TRF.

logfromblammo2• 6 years ago

This also lends support to "bonk training", which is an exercise fad designed to exhaust glycogen stores and then continue working out, just as a distance runner that hits the wall continues beyond to finish the marathon, or a cyclist that bonks keeps pedaling to finish the leg.

I think the point is to get your body to make the glycogen to ketone switch more smoothly, and after the bonk every calorie you burn comes directly from fat stores. For most people, exercising in ketone-mode is absolute misery, you physically can't perform at more than about 80% of what you could do with glycogen, and you can't pass your lactate threshold. So bonk trainers do that. On purpose.

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

Yep. But ketosis and intermittent fasting are complementary. It's just sooooo much easier to fast when in ketosis.

jaybeeayyy• 6 years ago

Not sure if I believe all the hype about these wild benefits low carb/keto diets have but I will say I've felt so much better on it...I rarely feel tired anymore and have been weirdly healthy the last 2 years. My doctor was surprised with my blood tests and weight loss when she heard what I eat lol. I'd never go back to the amount of carbs I was eating.

thekingofh• 6 years ago

How do you start? I can't seem to find a consistent diet plan that isn't insanely difficult to get into.

cgh• 6 years ago

Drop all starchy carbs and replace with meat, eggs and vegetables. It’s not rocket science.

letharion3• 6 years ago

I think diet doctor makes it trivially simple, but of course, to someone who never cooks, it might still seem though. https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/get-started

Zelphyr• 6 years ago

Same for me. I caught my first cold a few weeks ago but I was at a funeral (the stress of the death I'm sure reduced my immune system) hugging a bunch of people I hadn't seen in years so it's no surprise that I did. The thing is, several times over the past two years since starting Keto I felt a cold coming on but the next day it was gone. It's the weirdest thing. So weird that I have trouble attributing it all to Keto but I don't know what else other than Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (which I started at the same time as Keto) to attribute it to. I do know that exercise does help improve immunity but I ran a lot before starting Keto and BJJ and still caught colds.

My doctor was also surprised at my results. At first he was skeptical about what I was eating until he looked at my numbers. The shock on his face visible. Then he said, "These look so good that I guess you should keep doing what you're doing."

uptownfunk3• 6 years ago

IF has really saved my life. I definitely feel like i reverse aged a few years as a result of it. I enjoy food more now, weight is in check, I look younger.. hard to beat the benefits.

fokinsean2• 6 years ago

What's your regimen? Do you restrict what kinds of food you eat? What about alcohol?

I've been interested in starting it.

uptownfunk3• 6 years ago

Mostly plant based (occasional pizza or gelato maybe once a month), I do alternate day fasting, something like 40:8, fast 40 hours eat for 8.. try to avoid night eating, it makes me feel worse the next day.. maybe a bit much for some but I feel so much stronger as a result. Low caffeine.. probably too much fake meat/soy products for my own good..

eatmyshorts4• 6 years ago

As it turns out, insulin resistance, like that associated with type-2 diabetes, is also related to inflammation (apparently due to cytokines: https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/inflammation-and-diabetes), which in turn is correlated with heart disease.

As I understand it (disclaimer: I'm not a doctor), the inflammation results in damage to the blood vessels, which your body repairs by using cholesterol, among other things, that are in your blood. When LDL cholesterol (the "bad" kind of cholesterol) is used in this way, it calcifies over time, leading to hardening of the arteries. As someone with a high CAC score and premature calcification of my arteries, my doctors have advised me to move to a low-carb diet and combine that with statin drugs to lower my LDL cholesterol. Low carbs generally means lots of meat and lots of saturated fat, which is the opposite advice that doctors traditionally have given for patients at risk of heart disease.

Lately there have been lots of studies that show that dietary LDL cholesterol is only very loosely correlated with LDL cholesterol in your blood--primarily because the cholesterol in your blood is produced in your pancreas, not ingested/absorbed from your stomach. So I did a self experiment--go on a ketosis diet for 3 months before I started taking my statins and test to see if my LDL cholesterol changed. It didn't--it went slightly down in my case. Then I went on statins--now my LDL cholesterol is at "normal" levels.

So, basically as I understand it, low carb diets can help prevent your body damaging your arteries in the first place, such that they don't need repair. Then, the statins lower my LDL cholesterol such that when my arteries do need repair, the cholesterol that is used doesn't calcify over time. Basically I'm attempting to address my heart disease from both sides: prevent the damage in the first place, and remove calcifying LDL cholesterol from my bloodstream when arterial repair is necessary.

Note that this is all pretty cutting edge stuff, and we don't have good studies to demonstrate its effectiveness yet. If you have issues with calcification of your arteries, it is best to work with your doctor to find a program that works for you.

cageface6• 6 years ago

Dietary cholesterol is very directly correlated with blood cholesterol levels. You can feed someone cholesterol and directly watch their levels spike. But your body will clear it if you give it time which is why your fasting cholesterol may not show this if you have naturally low levels.

But during that window if time that cholesterol is active in your blood it's not doing you any favors. This is why heart attacks very often follow shortly after a meal.

togs• 6 years ago

I’m confused because I thought the brain liked sugars:

“The bold implication of this idea is that the effects of ego depletion could be undone by ingesting glucose, and Baumeister and his colleagues have confirmed this hypothesis in several experiments.”

Kahneman, D. “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. 2011. pg. 43, para. 2, Se. 5.

mikeklaas• 6 years ago

Ego Depletion is junk science which hasn't reproduced in serious experiments.

wigl• 6 years ago

Ego depletion was one of the key losers of the replication crisis in psych. Book was published right before the peak of the crisis. Basically it's impossible because the body can't even digest the glucose in time for the purported effect. Baumeister is also a hack who refuses to let go of the idea while others have moved on.

changelog: key example -> key losers

5cott05• 6 years ago

I still don't understand the tech bro fascination with disordered eating.

hoka-one-one4• 6 years ago

Many of us suffer from autism or anxiety or some other mental issue and hope to cure it with some strange diet. That's why despite being some of the most intelligent people on the internet people here will latch on to some singular model of human metabolism that's being promoted by the Russians or the Chinese right now (kidding, but only partly) and use it to justify a new "experiment".

Imposter syndrome fits in there. I didn't feel like I was good at my job or any of the things people think I'm good at, so I wanted to be this jack of all trades mad scientist character who uses himself as a guinea pig. Inevitably the low confidence leads to latching onto pseudoscientific theories -- it's a vicious cycle.

Others feel out of control of their lives and try to feel some sense of control through disordered eating (looking at you, "fasting"). I don't think I was really in this camp but I know people who are.

rofo13• 6 years ago

What the hell did I just read.

Intermittent fasting works. Talk to people that can show you results. Enough with the "theory".

I've heard many theories from obese people and it's always bullshit. Everyone can find far fetched theories for anything on this planet. That's why results talk. You know how they say "money talks"? Same here: results talk.

I, on the other hand, can tell you what works 100%, based on results (like 8% bodyfat, in very good shape):

Eat clean food, exercise daily, eat in 6-8 hours per day. Don't eat too many calories in total.

Do this for some time and I guarantee you will see effects. It only takes will and it's not rocket science.

Most bodybuilders that I see are people that are just, you know, dumb. And they can do it. So I promise you it's not complicated or anything. So I don't know what's stopping people from doing it.

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

Given the current state of health in western countries, I would claim the stasus-quo is actually disordered eating.

5cott05• 6 years ago

Current status quo is whatever quick fix is fashionable at the moment, i.e IF, Ketosis, Binge & Purge...

52-6F-62• 6 years ago

I'm in the camp of you should do what works for you or what makes you happy (life-lengthening/hacking/whatever be damned), but any extensive reading I've done in trying to treat myself well has just brought me back to the same old information: balance and calories in < calories out.

florin0x012• 6 years ago

How about weight training and low carb and sometimes IF? Would weight training prevent age related effects within the brain? Also you can't go full keto if you also want weight training, imo.

wtetzner16• 6 years ago

Also you can't go full keto if you also want weight training, imo.

You absolutely can, and people are doing it just fine.

Check out Metabolic Autophagy: https://www.amazon.com/Metabolic-Autophagy-Intermittent-Resi...

tokamak-teapot4• 6 years ago

Yep working fine here on ‘full’ keto (not sure what other kind there is) Depends what you want from your weight training. I enjoy it but I’m not trying to get massive gains.

sebastianconcpt• 6 years ago

“The bad news is that we see the first signs of brain aging much earlier than was previously thought. However, the good news is that we may be able to prevent or reverse these effects with diet, mitigating the impact of encroaching hypometabolism by exchanging glucose for ketones as fuel for neurons.”

The alternation with ketosis as source of energy is key as it seems...

The brain’s response to diet was tested in two ways. The first was holistic, comparing brain network stability after participants had spent one week on a standard (unrestricted) vs. low carb (for example: meat or fish with salad, but no sugar, grains, rice, starchy vegetables) diet. In a standard diet, the primary fuel metabolized is glucose, whereas in a low-carb diet, the primary fuel metabolized is ketones. However, there might have been other differences between diets driving the observed effects. Therefore, to isolate glucose vs. ketones as the crucial difference between the diets, an independent set of participants was scanned before and after drinking a small dose of glucose on one day, and ketones on the other, where the two fuels were individually weight-dosed and calorically matched. The results replicated, showing that the differences between the diets could be attributed to the type of fuel they provide to the brain.

crad2• 6 years ago

This is the first time I've seen something reference ingesting or drinking ketones. While I imagine it doesn't have the dietary benefit for losing fat, if this is a thing, and it's safe, I'm surprised it's not made it's way into energy drinks.

crad2• 6 years ago

And it has: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ketones+drink&va=z&t=hk&ia=web

Probably should have searched first :)

arafa2• 6 years ago

These are ketone ester drinks, but nothing really mainstream or in energy drinks. Esters are far too expensive and the taste far too bad for that. Most people have never even heard of these, in my experience.

arafa2• 6 years ago

I have a fair amount of experience with ketone esters and did some research. They taste terrible, but not as bad as I expected and definitely wasn't a deal breaker for me. I got more used to it over time. They're great for fueling from fat instead of glycogen, especially during exercise, (was very helpful for not having to down a ton of gels during a marathon) and not very helpful for weight loss (as you suggest).

nickbauman2• 6 years ago

A lot of folks here are using the term "intermittent fasting". This is a term that can make people struggling with eating disorders kinda lose their minds.

May suggest to replace this term with what's probably a better way of saying it anyway, because it's more accurate to what people are really doing when they say IF: Call it "time-restricted eating". You're eating the food you eat for a day in a smaller window. Not really fasting.

lukifer2• 6 years ago

There is some correlation between the benefits of "time-restricted eating" and full-blown fasting (autophagy, etc), so it makes some sense to talk about them similarly. There are many benefits to full water fasts, even for 2-3 days (and it's much easier to do successfully if one is already in ketosis). See the work of Dr. Jason Fung: https://thefastingmethod.com/

nickbauman2• 6 years ago

While we're at it: "Intermittent fasting" versus ... fasting until you die? All fasting is intermittent. IF just doesn't communicate anything regardless. I think it's clear it's just a bad term. Time restricted eating actually describes something specific.

rofo13• 6 years ago

This is a term that can make people struggling with eating disorders kinda lose their minds.

Maybe focus on the actual thing and not policing speech?

ghostbrainalpha• 6 years ago

A popular split on Intermittent Fasting is alternate day eating.

So on one day you eat nothing, and the other days you eat a normal amount of food. So it is Fasting. Also the 4-3 split is popular.

But I agree with you people who just skip breakfast and have lunch and dinner should probably just call it an "eating window".

A diet that has worked for 50 years is just, stop snacking after dinner and go to bed. But it's much cooler to say "I'm Intermittent Fasting" than "I just don't bring a bag of Oreos to bed anymore".

specialist• 6 years ago

What is the current, best thinking on managing LDL, especially while doing paleo?

I got huge benefits from paleo and partial calorie restriction. The biggest being my very bad psoriasis all but disappeared.

But it also spiked my LDL.

The statins didn't agree with me. I settled on eating every kind of soluble fiber I can find. eg: My morning porridge is steel cut oats, quinoa, chia seeds. I also resumed eating high(est) fiber rice.

Alas, all these seeds and grains have carbs.

I'd like to find strategies for high soluble fiber while reducing carbs. Even better, would be managing LDL directly.

PS- I spotted u/eatmyshorts comments about LDL and misc.

bad_user13• 6 years ago

I have been on Keto for about 8 months, felt terrible and interrupted the diet, only to later find that a lot of the theory behind it (the CIM model) is complete bullshit.

And whenever seeing claims of the effects of low carb or keto diets, most claims are confounded by the diet being hypocaloric, or with a significant variance in protein when compared with control, with its proponents constantly shifting the goal posts.

This study seems interesting and it has been known that ketosis can help epileptics. But take it with a grain of salt ;-)

dennis_jeeves• 6 years ago

What exactly did you eat, and in what quantities? List all that you ate, if possible. Unfortunately keto has such a broad definition that a lot of harmful stuff (like seed oils) can be considered part of the diet.

hoka-one-one4• 6 years ago

Is it too much to ask that anyone promoting low-carb based on personal experience post bloodwork? I think it's pretty clear no one on here is well-versed in nutrition as we're all programmers, so maybe it'd be good to have some intellectual integrity.

I'm interested in prolactin, thyroid, liver, cholesterol, CO2.

MrBuddyCasino• 6 years ago

I wanted to get bloodwork done to get some hard data, but I'm not sure which data points are the most important ones. Cholesterol and liver I understand, why prolactin, thyroid and CO2?

lhl4• 6 years ago

I've gone through several thousand papers the past year or two so I feel like I'm more well-versed in nutrition than most nutritionists/dieticians at this point, certainly in my understanding the recent clinical/research literature. I rarely post any nutritional/health related statements without citations to peer-reviewed work (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=lhl )

I think most people don't publish labs because they view it as personal, but I did a write-up last year, which includes (IMO) basically all my relevant markers: https://randomfoo.net/2019/09/17/1-year-personal-health-inte...

A very strange set of lab markers you're interested in btw - prolactin has very little clinical value for men (and is almost never tested), but I tested my testosterone at the one year mark (it's fine, 772ng/dL, I have not sequential tests). I had a thyroid panel last year as well and TSH, FT3, and FT4 were all in range. My CO2 has stayed the same regardless of diet - I don't know why that would be relevant at all.

For people looking to track their metabolic health, the bloodwork I think is most useful to track over time: CMP, CBC w/ diff, basic lipid panel (fasted 12h), A1c, fasting insulin, Vitamin D, hsCRP. I also was getting a full iron panel, and it was interesting to see my ferritin remained elevated last year (but is within range now - likely a marker of resolving MetS).

The thing that almost no one gets measured that is almost criminal IMO is fasting insulin - while it's highly mobile, it's also dirt cheap ($8 more than FBG+A1c direct-to-consumer price), allows calculating the best IR indices, and is a 10-15y leading indicator for chronic metabolic disease.

At home, waist circumference to height ratio (WHtR, WSR) is the best simple marker for tracking metabolic health.

Ashwell, Margaret, and Sigrid Gibson. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as an Indicator of ‘Early Health Risk’: Simpler and More Predictive than Using a ‘Matrix’ Based on BMI and Waist Circumference.” BMJ Open 6, no. 3 (March 14, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010159.

hoka-one-one4• 6 years ago

This is really cool and I think you're doing more due diligence than any HN user I've ever seen. The confounding variable is that you lost a lot of weight, of course, and I think many people who lose weight will be healthier at least in the short term. A question I've had in my head for a while is whether someone who has to stay on a ketogenic diet to be a healthy weight has "healed" or has just masked the underlying issue.

Would be interested to see your thyroid numbers as you continue on your ketogenic/fasting diet. "In range" does not necessarily mean optimal, and in general I'd be worried about T3 uptake going from 33 to 23 even though both are in range. The liver converts T4 to T3 in response to glucose availability -- this happens in many tissues, but they all depend on a liver enzyme, and most of the conversion occurs in the liver.

Low CO2 is a sign of kidney stress and acidosis. I also believe it's a marker of a low metabolic rate, much like thyroid.

Prolactin is a longer discussion I don't want to get into here (much like you on your LDL-C :)) but I'll definitely be following your posts as I think you're doing your part and have done more research than I have so maybe I'll comment on your blog sometime. Put very briefly I believe high prolactin in men can be a sign of chronic stress and calcium deficiency. It's been linked to gynecomastia, for example, which makes a lot of sense. In general I like to look for tests that show whether something's wrong, rather than what's specifically wrong. Someone might have alright D but still have issues properly metabolizing calcium.

1_player2• 6 years ago

For what it’s worth I’ve had blood tests recently after 3 weeks zero carb (pure carnivore)

Everything in the norm, high cholesterol but low triglycerides, glucose (HbA1c) bang on in the middle of the normal scale. Blood pressure going down, heart rate quite high that resolved itself after a few days (due to fat adaptation)

Eating probably 10g of salt per day, lower now that my body went past the adaptation phase. (My BP medication has a diuretic in it, so I need more than other people I guess)

No more stuffy nose, not feeling hungry at all, eating below or at my TDEE.

Surprisingly Vit D3 in the norm, and I don’t get any sun at all.

No palpitations I had when doing keto, no bloating, perfect bowel movements every 2 or 3 days.

YMMV.

ggffryuuj• 6 years ago

Well here I am again. Here are things I think people should know:

Gluconeogenisis does not kick you out of ketosis nor is it’s existence a counter-point to the keto diet.

I have first hand experience with keto and psychosis. I experienced something traumatic a while ago and began to have psychotic symptoms similar to schizophrenia. I had read an article beforehand written by a doctor claiming that keto benefited his psych patients, so I tried it. It cured me. Most symptoms gone in a couple days, total remission within a couple weeks. So PSA: if you or someone you know is having problems with psychotic mental health problems, keto may help you.

And I should add I was formally diagnosed with psychosis and prescribed antipsychotics. And the symptoms correlated perfectly with going on and off keto. Very little ambiguity. They are doing a study on this in Finland but results won’t be out till December.

nikkwong• 6 years ago

I don't really understand the briefing here; so would taking exogenous ketones also help mirror the beneficial effects of ketosis seen in this study? They did mention feeding their participants exogenous ketones but didn't say anything about those peoples' carb/fat ratios.

I'm all for jumping on the high fat/low carb diet; however, I love getting all my polyphenols and other beneficial compounds that are part and parcel with eating plants (higher carb). As many benefits we see from being in ketosis, we also have tons of data on the health benefits of eating plants, so I've been confused as to how to get the best of both worlds here.

projektfu2• 6 years ago

There are studies looking at this question.

Munky-Necan• 6 years ago

I think the prevailing theory will eventually be that a diet rich in monosaccharides is detrimental to health. It's been demonstrated that low carb, high meat diets are not the optimal diet, in that most adults will eat red meat or some type of processed meat and little fiber. Both add to the numerator when looking at myocardial infarction, stroke, and colorectal cancer. When one is in kidney failure it is recommended by the American Society of Nephrologists to attenuate protein derived from animal products.

Essentially, balance is what the current recommendations say, but also to stay completely away from sugar.

All my sources shamelessly stolen from Uptodate:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015 – 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015. Available at http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings J, Winter N, Mete E, Te Morenga. Lancet.
Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. N Engl J Med.
Meta-analysis of the association between whole grain intake and coronary heart disease risk. Tang G, Wang D, Long J, Yang F, Si L. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(5):625. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

cloverich• 6 years ago

I miss my up to date access. Tangential -- I do not think people realize a resource like UpToDate exists. Well written up to date summaries of various medical topics based on the latest research. Were something like this to be publicly accessible it would do wonders. If anyone is working on or wants to work on this type of problem please let me know, I'd love to help out (programmer, former MD).

zwaps• 6 years ago

I am a bit conflicted. According to the comments, one should do very low carb diet to adapt to Ketones as energy. For example, fasting would not be enough for this purpose. But that implies the need for a ketogenic diet.

Very low carb diets are difficult to do, at least if you are not very rich: Most of them require a lot of meat. Now, that differs by country. These diets are probably easiest to do in the USA with its huge industrial meat industry. In other countries, like here in Europe, you'd probably need to be a millionaire to buy that much meat in the first place. I don't know anyone doing this successfully.

But in any case: is it ethical? I doubt that this would be sustainable for everyone. If everyone would eat mostly red meat, we'd probably roast our planet pretty quickly. I don't think free range farming would support 7 billion carnivores, nor would the fish in the sea.

I realize the people doing Low Carb are not necessarily the same who care about sustainability. But if there is such a benefit to Ketogenic diets - for all our sakes - we should think about what happens if everyone wants to do it.

Of course there are options. There are low carb Vegans (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/veganketo/), but boy is it a chore to do. Also, I doubt this can be done with anything resembling local and unprocessed products. Furthermore, a lot of vegan protein products are high in soy. Which is fine really for any amount you'd normally consume. But if you are serious about low carb, you might eat so much that we get into that "questionable" range in terms of recent research.

Perhaps carbs need not be too low. Yeah we can eat a lot of veggies, probably. But it'll be a challenge, I think. Or not?

Say, you eat meat once a week. How do you do a ketogenic diet without losing your mind in planning etc?

nightvoomer• 6 years ago

There are two things being conflated, eating cheap keto and eating vegan keto.

Cheap keto its eating tons of eggs, berries, cauliflower, zuchinni and soy beans. Eggs are really the main thing though...tons and tons of eggs. Luckily there are hundreds of different ways to make them.

durpleDrank• 6 years ago

I love carbs.

5cott05• 6 years ago

What's the point of living forever if you're miserable and worn out all the time from managing oddly unnatural longevity diet regimes?

chriselles• 6 years ago

I’ve been on a keto diet almost exclusively for over 2 years now.

Results have been very impressive for me.

Not just in weight management, but also for fitness/performance.

Anecdotally, cognitive performance/output feels like I’ve moved the needle in the right direction.

Not sure if related, but multiple tests on telomere measurement(associated with cellular ageing) show “genetic age” well below my chronological age.

Despite all of this, I really don’t know.

The low carb and no sugar diet really seems to work for me.

If I had to guess, I’d say there is no single overwhelming factor to increasing longevity.

I think brain health is a mix of:

Healthy nutrition Hydration Fitness/activity level Sufficient sleep Low stress(but not no stress) Purpose People in your life Traumatic brain injury prevention Life long education Reading as a hobby No smoking

But in terms of mental agility(if not brain aging), I have a feeling that some low level of hunger is a positive indicator of short term mental agility.

I reckon there’s a high performance zone for brain health/performance for both short-term and long-term.

I look forward to more quantifiable research in this space.

Just my amateur 0.02c

econcon• 6 years ago

1. Dietary cholesterol is only weakly correlated to blood cholesterol.

2. Most people eat wayy too much. Calories are calories, consume less calories and run your body in calorie deficit if you wanna lose weight and surplus if you wanna gain weight.

3. LDL aka bad cholesterol might not be that bad. There are some new studies which claim that people who had low LDL suffered more from heart issues. What gives?

4. People who eat more sometimes do so to comfort themselves (they've deeper psychological issues), they'll benefit from eating less.

5. Polysaturated fats are good fats, monosaturated fats are bad fats.

6. Carbs are not bad, consuming too much carb is bad for you. Want to lose weight? Reduce your calorie intake (preferably dinner). Reduce feeding window, do not eat after 7pm, eat only after 10am.

7. Lift weight and perform cardio.

That's your current nutritional knowledge.

Want to increase muscles? Much better to start from skinny state and consume protein, workout and slowly build lean mass through progressive overload. Eat more protein will not build muscle faster, body will only use what it needs, not what's given

Most guys/gals on fitness YouTube channels and magnize have achieved that physique through use of drugs. So do not compare yourself to them and be disappointed.

smallcharleston• 6 years ago

The reason I refuse to read about keto is that pretty much all doctors and public health organizations I’ve seen recommend basically the same things: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, replace saturated fats with unsaturated if possible, low fat dairy, nuts, legumes, fish, some poultry sometimes, strictly controlled alcohol.

Until these guys start recommending something such as keto my basic assumption is that it’s either a weird fringe diet or a diet only applicable to very specific medical issues (eg seizures) that me (not a medical professional) should not try on myself.

If I go to a doctor and they ask how my diet is and I tell them I eat the stuff I listed above, I’m fairly certain they will tell me good job. If I do some extreme fringe thing, I doubt it will be their response with the same likelihood (though a few probably like it).

This is just my personal opinion.

dot1x• 6 years ago

I've been on Keto for 2 months now but I hardly lost any weight. I'm wondering if my protein intake is too high.

Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

Related Stories