LCHF vs Ketosis

[ghost_whistler]

Ok, this is something that I don't think got answered and is confusing me to no end.

If you aren't in or aiming for ketosis, is the LCHF diet contraindicated? Is it safe/healthy to eat that much fat if you are staying out of or just above ketosis (or otherwise unable to reach it)?

Beccause if you aren't in ketosis are you not still using glucose? Is it even safe to go low on carbs if you can't or don't reach ketosis?

I think I need to know before i continue guzzling fat and frying veg in butter for dinner. I seem to be averaging around 30-40 carbs, but i don't think I'm ketotic at all. Do I even need to be? I don't know. But I want to be sure I'm beaing healthy in what i eat.

Thanks

 

[azure]

@ghost_whistler The low carb diet here allows up to 130g carbs a day. That's aimed at those trying to control their blood sugar, and each person will have a slightly different amount of carbs that they can tolerate - some very few, some a fair bit more. By 'tolerate' I mean in regard to their blood sugar, as the diet is aimed at those with diabetes and prediabetes.

I kmow you don't have diabetes so it's not quite the same but you could do similar - ie try various amounts of carbs/fat/protein and see what suits you personally. Your judgement about what suits you could encompass various criteria eg how you feel, weight, etc, etc.

There's no one diet that suits everyone.

 

[ghost_whistler]

Indeed, but I am trying to understand the mechanics of this diet. I'm happy on a significantly reduced carb intake, perhaps adding a carrot or an apple wouldn't be the end of the world - and in fact I do question whether ketogenic really allows for enough vits and minerals given that almost all fruit is excluded.

But it's the issue of high fat. Not only does it sound too good to be true - after all it's the orthodoxy that even the NHS maintains to this day - but I have to ask if that degree of fat is healthy - unless your goal is to adapt to fat.

This is the question that i've yet to find an answer to and I would like to know that, as i eat significanlty more fat in my diet, i'm not storing up trouble long term for my arteries etc.

Also, there's a lot of confusion about the values for macronutrients. You can calculate it online on various sites, but i've seen conflicting info as to how much is too much or too little. The macros for me, based on about 30g of carb, were 111g protein and 140g fat (roughly in each case). Presumably as you lower carbs you need to balance the shortfall somehow so it must be either protein or fat.

But if you aren't in ketosis, don't you still need glucose? Where will that come from if you cut carbs and eat a moderate protein level (as advised by LCHF diets)? Or have I misunderstood that.

 

[BrianTheElder]

Indeed, but I am trying to understand the mechanics of this diet. I'm happy on a significantly reduced carb intake, perhaps adding a carrot or an apple wouldn't be the end of the world - and in fact I do question whether ketogenic really allows for enough vits and minerals given that almost all fruit is excluded.

But it's the issue of high fat. Not only does it sound too good to be true - after all it's the orthodoxy that even the NHS maintains to this day - but I have to ask if that degree of fat is healthy - unless your goal is to adapt to fat.

This is the question that i've yet to find an answer to and I would like to know that, as i eat significanlty more fat in my diet, i'm not storing up trouble long term for my arteries etc.

Also, there's a lot of confusion about the values for macronutrients. You can calculate it online on various sites, but i've seen conflicting info as to how much is too much or too little. The macros for me, based on about 30g of carb, were 111g protein and 140g fat (roughly in each case). Presumably as you lower carbs you need to balance the shortfall somehow so it must be either protein or fat.

But if you aren't in ketosis, don't you still need glucose? Where will that come from if you cut carbs and eat a moderate protein level (as advised by LCHF diets)? Or have I misunderstood that.

The idea of eating more fat is to make you feel full. Carbs won't do that, in fact the more carbs you eat, the hungrier you get! What you need is a diet low in carbs, so that excess glucose from the carbs is not stored as body fat, together with high fat to increase satiety. Once you start burning fat in ketosis, your system then goes on to burn body fat, so ketosis is indicated for weight loss more than LCHF. But the main point is to reduce carbs because they promote insulin production (hence fat storage), which is the last thing a T2D needs.

 

[azure]

@ghost_whistler There are various low and lower carb diets, some with more protein than others, some with more fat. You say you're happy with your diet but worried about the amount of fat. Then you need to consider a possible jiggle of your macros. Would you be happy adding more protein, for example?

I would never eat a keto diet for a number of reasons, some related to my diabetes, some not. That's my personal decision.

If you have concerns or questions about aspects of the diet, I suggest you research on Google as much as you can in order to look at both sides of the diet - pros and cons.

It also depends what your aims are. For those who have a significant amount of weight to lose, or have a blood sugar of 20 that they want to get down, any cons may be outweighed by the pros of helping those problems. But for others, a different diet may fit better.

 

[kittypoker]

It's really not that complicated. I don't have diabetes but am at risk so have chosen a keto (Atkins) lifestyle as a preventive. As a side order, I'm peeling off the pounds.

You don't need to be in ketosis to lose weight, but it's faster. You definitely do not need to 'guzzle fat'. Just avoid all the low fat products.

Ketosis is NOT dangerous. There is some confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis, a very serious condition rarely found in non-insulin dependent T2's.

I've been in ketosis for a year, and I love it. My fat store is being used up so I'm losing weight at a comfortable rate. The glucose required for healthy brain function is delivered by my liver. All good.

 

[AndBreathe]

Indeed, but I am trying to understand the mechanics of this diet. I'm happy on a significantly reduced carb intake, perhaps adding a carrot or an apple wouldn't be the end of the world - and in fact I do question whether ketogenic really allows for enough vits and minerals given that almost all fruit is excluded.

But it's the issue of high fat. Not only does it sound too good to be true - after all it's the orthodoxy that even the NHS maintains to this day - but I have to ask if that degree of fat is healthy - unless your goal is to adapt to fat.

This is the question that i've yet to find an answer to and I would like to know that, as i eat significanlty more fat in my diet, i'm not storing up trouble long term for my arteries etc.

Also, there's a lot of confusion about the values for macronutrients. You can calculate it online on various sites, but i've seen conflicting info as to how much is too much or too little. The macros for me, based on about 30g of carb, were 111g protein and 140g fat (roughly in each case). Presumably as you lower carbs you need to balance the shortfall somehow so it must be either protein or fat.

But if you aren't in ketosis, don't you still need glucose? Where will that come from if you cut carbs and eat a moderate protein level (as advised by LCHF diets)? Or have I misunderstood that.

Ghost_whistler - As I've said before, RH is about peaks and fast rebounds that can't quite be compensate for on the way down. So, in my own way of visualising, I see that as trying to smooth the spikes into smoother, softer curves.

Where blood sugar is concerned, to prevent the spikes upward it's common to cut back on the carbs (which largely fuel the rises), but to fill the calorie gaps created by taking out some carbs, fat is added, because it is extremely tasty, and makes us feel full quickly, and the feeling lasts.

I don't have RH, but was diagnosed T2, but my aims were pretty similar - to get the peaks down and smooth the line out a bit.

Over time, I reduced my carb intake and over a short while I achieved my objective of bringing the peaks down.

I believe I am pretty weel fat adapted, but I have no idea if I'm or indeed every have been in ketosis. Ketosis seems to be some sort of holy grail, but I don't believe it is utterly pivotal in achieving any goal.

Every single one of us will have a different point at which carbs become troublesome to us. If there was a magic number, we'd all be shouting it from the treetops, and this forum wouldn't have much purpose.

My advice would be that if you are enjoying your reduced carb diet, then to stick with it, and keep testing, recording your food and how you are feeling. Once you identify your trigger foods, then you will know what you need to avoid and what you can eat freely. It could just be a couple of things.

Fats don't harm us, provided we're not doing a High Carb High Fat diet. That's not a happy mix.

 

[ghost_whistler]

Ghost_whistler - As I've said before, RH is about peaks and fast rebounds that can't quite be compensate for on the way down. So, in my own way of visualising, I see that as trying to smooth the spikes into smoother, softer curves.

Where blood sugar is concerned, to prevent the spikes upward it's common to cut back on the carbs (which largely fuel the rises), but to fill the calorie gaps created by taking out some carbs, fat is added, because it is extremely tasty, and makes us feel full quickly, and the feeling lasts.

I don't have RH, but was diagnosed T2, but my aims were pretty similar - to get the peaks down and smooth the line out a bit.

Over time, I reduced my carb intake and over a short while I achieved my objective of bringing the peaks down.

I believe I am pretty weel fat adapted, but I have no idea if I'm or indeed every have been in ketosis. Ketosis seems to be some sort of holy grail, but I don't believe it is utterly pivotal in achieving any goal.

Every single one of us will have a different point at which carbs become troublesome to us. If there was a magic number, we'd all be shouting it from the treetops, and this forum wouldn't have much purpose.

My advice would be that if you are enjoying your reduced carb diet, then to stick with it, and keep testing, recording your food and how you are feeling. Once you identify your trigger foods, then you will know what you need to avoid and what you can eat freely. It could just be a couple of things.

Fats don't harm us, provided we're not doing a High Carb High Fat diet. That's not a happy mix.

Thanks, you didn't feel inclined to get a ketone meter and check?

 

[AndBreathe]

Thanks, you didn't feel inclined to get a ketone meter and check?

I used a couple of urine stick, but a long time after starting to eat lower carb, so any result was likely to be inconclusive, because if one has been in dietary ketosis for a while, the urine ketones disappear, as the body becomes more efficient in metabolising fat for fuel.

I considered blood testing, but the test strips work out over £1 per test, and to be honest, I didn't intend to modify my way of eating (that works for me), whether a test showed I had ketones or not. It seemed like an expensive way to know if I was in dietary ketosis or not, at that moment, because of course, like blood sugar levels, ketones vary on a day-by-day and depend of any day's eating patterns.

Those were my feelings. I was, and am, more concerned by my blood results, and maintaining gentler curves, rather than peaks and troughs.

In your shoes, I reiterate, I'd be concentrating on my blood scores, and how I was feeling, whilst keeping an eye on weight to make sure I wasn't gaining or losing, unless you feel you need to trim up a bit.