Don't want to cause a problem about ketosis

[rndiane]

Don't beat me up on this question because years ago it was a contoversial subject.I have spent enough time on "search" and I still couldn't find the answer. Is ketosis from dietary fat or body fat? I'm asking because I'm in ketosis but weight loss now is minimal if at all.

[creseis]

That is a totally worthwhile question and probably has a complicated answer! I have often thought of the same question--where does your liver prefer to take the fat from--dietary, or body? I don't know the exact answer, but I would guess ketosis probably comes directly from the fat you ingest for the most part, and when it runs out of that, it will use body fat. I don't know the exact mechanism for this, although I think I remember reading about it in Phinney and Volek.

[verbqueen]

If you've only been on Atkins a short time, you've probably hit the three week post-induction stall (which most of us seem to hit even if we stay on induction and remain solidly in ketosis.) Stay the course and the losses will start again in a week or two.

[clackley]

Ketosis is the fuel your body is burning and that can be dietary fat or stored body fat of probably more accurately, both. It means that glucose is not the main fuel.

[rndiane]

So, it sounds like your body would use the dietary fat first then when that is depleted, it would use body fat. I think I maybe eating too much dietary fat.

[reddarin]

This is from Dr. Eades' Blog. It is a bit long but I think it answers your question.

Google 'dr eades metabolism-and-ketosis'.

If you’re not eating or if you’re on a low-carbohydrate diet, where does this glucose come from?

If you’re starving, glucose comes mainly from one place, and that is from the body’s protein reservoir: muscle. A little can come from stored fat, but not from the fatty acids themselves. Although glucose can be converted to fat, the reaction can’t go the other way. Fat is stored as a triglyceride, which is three fatty acids hooked on to a glycerol molecule. The glycerol molecule is a three-carbon structure that, when freed from the attached fatty acids, can combine with another glycerol molecule to make glucose. Thus a starving person can get a little glucose from the fat that is released from the fat cells, but not nearly enough. The lion’s share has to come from muscle that breaks down into amino acids, several of which can be converted by the liver into glucose. (There are a few other minor sources of glucose conversion: the Cori cycle, for example, but these are not major sources, so we’ll leave them for another, more technical, discussion.)

But the breakdown of muscle creates another problem, namely, that (in Paleolithic times and before) survival was dependent upon our being able to hunt down other animals and/or forage for plant foods. It makes it tough to do this if a lot of muscle is being converted into glucose and your muscle mass is dwindling.

The metabolic system is then presented with two problems: 1) getting glucose for the glucose-dependent tissues; and 2) maintaining as much muscle mass as possible to allow hunting and foraging to continue.

Early on, the metabolic system doesn’t know that the starvation is going to go on for a day or for a week or two weeks. At first it plunders the muscle to get its sugar. And remember from a past post that a normal blood sugar represents only about a teaspoon of sugar dissolved in the entire blood volume, so keeping the blood sugar normal for a day or so doesn’t require a whole lot of muscular sacrifice. If we figure that an average person requires about 200 grams of sugar per day to meet all the needs of the glucose-dependent tissues, we’re looking at maybe a third of a pound of muscle per day, which isn’t all that big a deal over the first day. But we wouldn’t want it to continue at that rate. If we could reduce that amount and allow our muscle mass to last as long as possible, it would be a big help.

The metabolic system could solve its problem by a coming up with a way to reduce the glucose-dependent tissues’ need for glucose so that the protein could be spared as long as possible.

Ketones to the rescue.

The liver requires energy to convert the protein to glucose. The energy comes from fat. As the liver breaks down the fat to release its energy to power gluconeogenesis, the conversion of protein to sugar, it produces ketones as a byproduct. And what a byproduct they are. Ketones are basically water soluble (meaning they dissolve in blood) fats that are a source of energy for many tissues including the muscles, brain and heart. In fact, ketones act as a stand in for sugar in the brain. Although ketones can’t totally replace all the sugar required by the brain, they can replace a pretty good chunk of it. By reducing the body’s need for sugar, less protein is required, allowing the muscle mass (the protein reservoir) to last a lot longer before it is depleted. And ketones are the preferred fuel for the heart, making that organ operate at about 28 percent greater efficiency.

Fat is the perfect fuel. Part of it provides energy to the liver so that the liver can convert protein to glucose. The unusable part of the fat then converts to ketones, which reduce the need for glucose and spare the muscle in the process.

If, instead of starving, you’re following a low-carb diet, it gets even better. The protein you eat is converted to glucose instead of the protein in your muscles. If you keep the carbs low enough so that the liver still has to make some sugar, then you will be in fat-burning mode while maintaining your muscle mass, the best of all worlds. How low is low enough? Well, when the ketosis process is humming along nicely and the brain and other tissues have converted to ketones for fuel, the requirement for glucose drops to about 120-130 gm per day. If you keep your carbs below that at, say, 60 grams per day, you’re liver will have to produce at least 60-70 grams of glucose to make up the deficit, so you will generate ketones that entire time.

So, on a low-carb diet you can feast and starve all at the same time. Is it any wonder it’s so effective for weight loss?

[biancasteeplechase]

Gary Taubes writes about this, too. Basically, he says we're told that fat cells are for long-term storage of fat - that they're like a savings account that we only dip into when we're forced to.

But that's not actually true. Fat cells are more like a wallet - much as you constantly dip into your wallet, fatty acids are constantly flowing in and out of the fat cells.

When your body burns fatty acids, it doesn't know or care whether they came from the food you just ate, or from a fat cell. If we tracked individual molecules of fat, you'd find that you're burning some of each.

I really recommend Taubes's books - start with Why We Get Fat. It's a straightforward (even fun) explanation of how the chemistry works.

[rndiane]

Thank you reddarin that was a good article. I will also down load the book bianca.

[creseis]

oh wait, I remember this now.. (sorry I'm really tired so my brain isn't working) -- lipoproteins are the vessels that carry many different hydrophobic molecules, including cholesterol, TG, and fatty acids. These lipoproteins basically work to transfer these molecules from one place to the liver or back out into the gut for disposal, so either you are going to deliver fats from the gut to the liver or from the adipose tissue.

To simplify it.

Originally Posted by biancasteeplechase

Gary Taubes writes about this, too. Basically, he says we're told that fat cells are for long-term storage of fat - that they're like a savings account that we only dip into when we're forced to.

But that's not actually true. Fat cells are more like a wallet - much as you constantly dip into your wallet, fatty acids are constantly flowing in and out of the fat cells.

When your body burns fatty acids, it doesn't know or care whether they came from the food you just ate, or from a fat cell. If we tracked individual molecules of fat, you'd find that you're burning some of each.

I really recommend Taubes's books - start with Why We Get Fat. It's a straightforward (even fun) explanation of how the chemistry works.

[rndiane]

Bianca, I down loaded the Taube's book last night and it is very interesting. I read the first few chapters and decided to google Gary Taube and seen he is a journalist not a MD, DO or nutritionist and he is controversial among the science community. His masters is in aerospace.
I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book. I'm just worrried about his credentials.

[reddarin]

From the Gary Taubes site:

Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American science writer. He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (1993), and Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), which is titled The Diet Delusion in the UK. He has won the Science in Society Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996-97.

Born in Rochester, New York, Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and aerospace engineering at Stanford (MS, 1978). After receiving a master’s degree in journalism at Columbia University in 1981, Taubes joined Discover magazine as a staff reporter in 1982. Since then he has written numerous articles for Discover, Science and other magazines. Originally focusing on physics issues, his interests have more recently turned to medicine and nutrition.

Taubes’ books have all dealt with scientific controversies. Nobel Dreams takes a critical look at the politics and experimental techniques behind the Nobel Prize-winning work of physicist Carlo Rubbia. Bad Science is a chronicle of the short-lived media frenzy surrounding the Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion experiments of 1989.

[rndiane]

I read this last night and stand corrected, his Master's is in journalism. I am not discounting his book at all. It is very good. I just hesitate to quote him to my friends because they will ask what his back ground is on this subject.

[Geekin' in Utah]

The nice thing about a science-trained journalist is he isn't beholden to the research dollars most scientists are. Good Calories, Bad Calories backs up his writing with ample pointers to evidence that real research was generating but was being ignored because it wasn't finding the answers the funding agencies (eg the government) wanted.

[clackley]

I am always amazed when people try to discredit Taubes' work because he is not an MD or nutritionist or dietitian. While I am sure there are many in those fields that have a clue about good science, many do not and are parroting a bunch of bad science or no science at all.

He was encouraged to look into the 'science' around nutrition because it is some of the worst that exists. If you really want to read about the 'science' that led to our current state of affairs, I suggest you read Good Calories/Bad Calories in which he goes into that subject in more detail.

[rndiane]

Very good point Geek. I totally agree with your statement.

[rndiane]

Clackley, I am not discrediting him at all. I'm enjoying his book and looking forward to reading the rest of it. My only point was, it will be hard to quote him to most of my friends because he doesn't have a PHD, MD or DO behind his name. Believe me, there are a few friends that will research him if I quote him and I'm losing weight on low carb.

[kayellr]

Point them to the footnotes. Good Calories, Bad Calories has a much longer section, since Why We Get Fat was written for audiences that found GCBC tough/too long reading.

[Leo41]

What you have to keep in mind is that Gary Taubes didn't 'invent' low carb eating. What he's done is basically 'rehabilitate' Dr. Atkins (and other low-carb advocates like Dr. Eades) by examining the scientific basis for low carb eating and the types of research that opposes it. If you read his Good Calories/Bad Calories, you'll see that what he does is defend the scientific basis for low-carb eating and show how so much that's 'accepted' in the medical community is based on flawed research.

So you're not basing your WOE on 'Gary Taubes' as a single proponent of low-carb. Rather, he's a strong advocate for a WOE that has been promoted by medical doctors (Atkins, Eades) for many years.

[lterry913]

Originally Posted by rndiane

So, it sounds like your body would use the dietary fat first then when that is depleted, it would use body fat. I think I maybe eating too much dietary fat.

hmm... I would think NO.... keep fat intake up, but make sure carbs are low compared to fat percentage wise... you will then take in less calories because the fat should keep you feeling satiated. The carb and calorie decrease will cause your body to use the fat stores as well as the newly eaten fat for energy because you are creating a deficit( a shortage of energy from calories and carbs)...I hope this makes sense... it is the only way I can rationalize it for myself.

Fat makes you feel full causing you to eat less, and burn more fat because that is now the main fuel source.

[Lokarbiebarbie]

I always thought that the original book "Protein Power" by Dr. Michael Eades (if you want to have a doctor written book..please be forewarned that doctors take about four HOURS of nutrition in study...they don't know squat and don't have time to learn IMHO) does a wonderful explanation of how ketosis works, WHY it works, and why lowcarb is one of the most healthy ways to eat.

[clackley]

Originally Posted by rndiane

Clackley, I am not discrediting him at all. I'm enjoying his book and looking forward to reading the rest of it. My only point was, it will be hard to quote him to most of my friends because he doesn't have a PHD, MD or DO behind his name. Believe me, there are a few friends that will research him if I quote him and I'm losing weight on low carb.

Oh, I didn't think you were. I was referring to those that do.

If people want to blow off a hypothesis on the basis that a person doesn't have the proper 'credentials', that indicates a closed mind and therefore a poor scientist. A good scientist knows and practices the constant questioning of what we 'know'.

[Liz1959]

I first heard Taubes one night on youtube. He has many presentations there that cover what's in WWGF. They are better than interviews. I cleaned out my cupboards the next day.
If you want other MD's check youtube for David Diamond or Donald Miller. Excellant presentations.

[wicked]

Originally Posted by rndiane

Clackley, I am not discrediting him at all. I'm enjoying his book and looking forward to reading the rest of it. My only point was, it will be hard to quote him to most of my friends because he doesn't have a PHD, MD or DO behind his name. Believe me, there are a few friends that will research him if I quote him and I'm losing weight on low carb.

I'm not being personal. but why would you even care what your friends think? Let them research, they may actually learn something. There are some highly intelligent people out there that don't have PHD,MD or DO behind their name.

But here are a few for them to research:

Michael R. Eades, M.D.
Mary Dan Eades, M.D.
Steve Phinney, M.D., PhD.
Jeff Volek, PhD.
Robert Atkins, M.D.
Peter Attia, M.D.

[rndiane]

Wicked, I shouldn't but I do. I remember in 2002 when I first did this WOE, it was impossible at work. People would see me eating omlets and bacon, etc ,and I was told I would be dead from heart disease within 10 years or sooner. I just got a lot of hassle from it. Of course, I lost over 50# but it didn't matter. I was still going to die. At that time my cholestrol ratio was 3:1 and triglycerides were in the 90s. I tried to defend my WOE but I still got the side looks. I think more people are open now to low carb but many of my friends are athletes and low fat/protein eaters.

[rndiane]

BTW, I have never read such a comprehesive book as this. It is explaining all the questions I had on low carb and I'm only half way through the book.

[NineOhNine]

Albert Einstein was a patents clerk. Taubes has more than enough science cred.

[LindaM]

Diane, Just don't worry about people at work. These friends don't seem that wise or they would be reading and checking into low carb for themselves. I've had 2 doctors tell me to go with eating more of a meat and vegetable diet limiting starches. Just this weekend on TV they were saying people eating same about of calories the diet higher in fat people burned 300 more calories. Also now saying even a little higher glucose is bad for the brain even if a person is not a diabetic. I haven't read all the stuff out there about the benefits of low carb. What motivates me is my doctor said high cholesterol comes from the process of carbs not from fat. I don't go as strict low carb as some people. I just do what is right for me and as long as I am losing weight that's all that matters to me. One thing for sure being significantly over weight is bad for a person. I think sometimes people act as though something is stupid to do because they don't want to know the truth. They don't want to change what they are doing. I would rather eat carbs and was resistant to going low carb but I am doing it anyway.