• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The role of ketones in health?


What?
Are you saying they shouldn't be prescribing calcium and vitamins for the osteoporosis, just broccoli, because it's better than potatoes if you're ketotic? I'm totally lost here.
I think I would suggest if that suits you, and you're happy on the diet, we should leave it here.
 
"What?
Are you saying they shouldn't be prescribing calcium and vitamins for the osteoporosis, just broccoli, because it's better than potatoes if you're ketotic? I'm totally lost here.
I think I would suggest if that suits you, and you're happy on the diet, we should leave it here."

How you got lost is not for me to say. "I think I would suggest if that suits you, and you're happy on the diet, we should leave it here."

As you wish.

FB
 
It amuses me that the out come of this has come down to "eat more broccoli"!

To give you another perspective, I eat as much carbs as I like. Usually about 120g a day. I'm slim, perfect cholesterol, blood pressure etc etc hba1c of 6.1% which, as a type 1, is as low as I'm willing to go as any lower and I'd risk hypos.

I'm living a fit and healthy life WITHOUT ketones.
 

Because when you are ill your body releases extra glucose into your bloodstream but the problem is I virtually have no natural insulin of my own so my levels rise and often I don't feel like eating so I cant just inject loads of insulin as I risk hypoglycemia so I inject half of my daily dose instead.
 

Probably, it comes down to "make sure your diet contains adequate vitamins & minerals for your body requirements"

Congratulations on having the carb/HbA1c balance you are comfortable with :thumbup:
i would hope that all of us would monitor ourselves and make adjustments in our regimes to avoid any adverse occurrences :thumbup:
 

MIne does. I'm not ketotic, so I do have reserves of glucose, and also a source from the carbs I eat. However if you have been ketotic for a while, you should have no glucose floating about for normal use, and nothing to replenish your reserves as you previously used them. I thought the whole point of switching to a ketogenic diet is to remove glucose from your body, and the body can manufacture only ketones to replace the glucose.
 
You cannot compare the ketogenic diet with giving lactose to intollerant people. The main reason is that we MAKE the ketones as a result of our own metabolism. Lactose is something we ingest. I absolutely would not sugest that a lactose intollerant person should ingest lactose any more than someone with coeliac disease should ingest gluten.
I do sugget that by limiting our starch and sugar ingestion, we may improve our blood chemistry to something that we should have.
I don't know this, because it's never been researched. the treatment of intractable epilepsy by ketogenic diet goes back nearly a ccentury and although some side effcts have been noted, they are no common and as far as I know all found in growing children, whilst about 90% of children treated with the diet have improved or been cured.
Hana
 
However if you have been ketotic for a while, you should have no glucose floating about for normal use, and nothing to replenish your reserves as you previously used them
Click to expand...
Unfortunately your brain still requires glucose, and the body is able to manufacture substantial amounts of glucose just in case people try to starve their brains; in type 2 diabetics the glucose production in the liver can be up to three times normal (and the common first line drug, Metformin, works by reducing excessive glucose production). If you are ill or stressed then cortisol will drive BG higher.
Ketogenic diet is only about limiting dietary glucose intake.

You cannot compare the ketogenic diet with giving lactose to intollerant people
Click to expand...
Sure I can - you claim that a ketogenic diet is good for all of us because it is used to treat a rare medical condition, which is just as absurd as recommending that we avoid milk because it is used to treat lactose-intolerant people. You may be right, but argument is extremely weak.
 


? Who suggested a ketogenic diet is the same as feeding lactose to people?
And you seriously think we where designed to have acidic blood?
Why?
We make the ketones so we don't die, I'd do a lot of things I wouldn't normally do under the same circumstances.

I would be really interested in you articles you have that state the side effects of a ketogenic diet aren't common, and why curing epilepsy is medically of any relevance to a diabetic?
I would still like to read the articles you referred to in your opening post as well, do you have any links?
 
although some side effcts have been noted, they are no common and as far as I know all found in growing children, whilst about 90% of children treated with the diet have improved or been cured.
Hana
Click to expand...

Well I'd agree that nearly all the effects have been found in growing children, there is very little evidence about it's use in adults. One study with adolescents reported that 45% of the girls in that study suffered menstrual dysfunction which is something to think about when young women are advised to use this diet. Bone development is also not restricted to children, it carries on into the 30s when it reaches it's peak . If you haven't developed sufficient bone density by then you will be at risk of osteopenia later in life.
A tiny percentage of children get kidney stones yet in 28 children who used the diets for more than 6 years at the John Hopkins hospital 25% of them suffered from them. Even children on the diet for less long were at high risk since 5-6% developed them .*
*you'll hopefully find fewer now as children on the diet receive potassium citrate which seems to help prevent them.
The Matthew's friends site quite rightly gives summaries of the evidence about the side effect of the ketogenic diet for epilepsy on it's site . Note that in the very first study 17% of the children had to discontinue with some sort of severe complication.
http://site.matthewsfriends.org/uploads ... c_diet.pdf
The GOSH team also point out the known side effects .
One of those is worth noting for those of us with T1; metabolic acidosis ie too great a build-up of ketones causing acidosis.
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/health-professio ... -epilepsy/

It can be effective for a proportion of children with epilepsy and for those children and their parents the risk of side effects may be outweighed by the benefits but nowhere near 90% of children improve.
The Ormond Street trial started with 145 children but 46% stopped the diet(s) for a variety of reasons.
Of those that continued a handful did become seizure free with 9.65% having a 90+% reduction in seizures and another 20% having 50+% reduction.
But for 60% ie the majority of these children it was less effective. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 870.x/full
 
Most studies I looked at suggested children were the target group as most adults simply cheated, but also that osteoporosis affected all on the diet, as the altered blood chemistry affected bone density. Calcium supplements were a pre requisite for all on the diet, plus regular blood screens.
 
douglas99 said:
MIne does. I'm not ketotic,
Click to expand...

Ketotic? Surely you mean Ketogenic or ketosis?

BTW...As you are against ketones in the blood-have you ever tested yourself for them? it's just that I'm sure you stated recently you were consuming an extremely low calorie diet for a man,ie,800-1200 calories a day which could mean you have them due to starvation,albeit unknowingly,just a thought...
 
Adjective.

I'm not against ketones. I'm against a diet that isn't carried out safely and correctly, without the knowledge of it's possible consequences. If I am producing ketones, short term, I can live with it. The side effects are the accumulation over the life of the diet. That's enough to put me off that particular diet as a lifestyle choice. I doubt I am producing ketones though, I have no other signs. And starvation diet is a lot less than 1000 calories average. It's also now being hailed as the new best diet, in much the same way as the Atkins diet was in it's time. Again though, not a diet for life.
 
So... Are we now saying low carb therefore ketones are not good health wise in the long run?
Click to expand...

No, there are no long term studies that show low carb high fat to be detrimental to health, the OP of this thread has been low carb for many years and has suffered no complications. I myself have been low carbing based around 50g carbs a day for four years and also have had no problems.

The ketogenic diet that has been cited has been specifically formulated for epileptics, you can get into ketosis without going under 20g carbs I think the figure is around 50g.
 


What studies of long term LCHF are there, or is it the fact that are no studies, good or bad , you are relying on to prove it's safe?
As the ones cited in the post clearly aren't without known side effects, what's the special diet for epileptics that causes the problems, and if I want the diabetic version you are on, what do I need to do that is different that won't cause similar side effects?
How long has the op been low carbing for?
 
douglas you are clearly not a great advocate of low carbing, wouldnt you say it is a great short term way of reducing your bg numbers? it has also been shown to reduce cholesterol levels which i know you are trying to do as previously mentioned, it has been proven to help shift weight for heavy folks in most cases, its long term effects are unknown or unproved so lets sum up...

low carb = lower bgs, lower cholesterol and weight loss..... explain to me why you are so anti low carb again?
 

You agree there may be health risks long term then?
 
brett said:
Can someone answer what ketones burn for fuel instead when fat stores are used up, or when the body needs quick
Fuel for activity?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

Hi Brett. The average person can have up to 40,000 calories worth of energy available that is stored in fat cells. But because our modern eating habits have changed so much and we never experience periods of starvation, most western humans have never adapted to be able to tap into the bodies alternative fuel source and use fatty acids efficiently.

This 40,000 calorie number compares to approximately 2700 calories worth of calories which can be stored as glycogen in the liver. This is why many endurance athletes who are 'sugar burners' experience the bonking effect in long distance events, and have to take on extra carbohydrates during the race in order to replace the burnt glycogen - they are unable to switch between fuels because their bodies have never learned to. To become properly fat adapted you do have to eat low carb for a period of approximately four weeks. Performance in this time is definitely adversely affected as the body learns to produce ketones and turn to fatty acids for fuel. It is akin to a factory which previously made cars and that factory overnight changes to producing computers. Clearly there will be a period of transition for the workforce until the factory becomes efficient at making computers.

There then comes the argument as to what type of exercise you do. If Someone who is fat adapted stays at an aerobic level (typically less than 70% max heart rate) then they can burn fatty acids as their primary fuel source, along with some glucose. If, however, someone who is fat adapted undertakes explosive high intensity exercise then they are working at an anaerobic threshold, and their body can't burn the fatty acids quickly enough to keep up with their level of activity so their bodies burn glucose as their fuel source. Our bodies are amazing (minus the insulin deficiency thing obviously). In the absence of dietary carbohydrate, proteins are converted to glucose via the liver in a process called gluconeogenesis (however in a low carb diet, the glycogen stores never get filled properly through this process, which is why high intensity exercise suffers). This is important as our brains and other organs can run on ketones but there still remains a requirement for glucose for these organs. But, in terms of exercise, if high intensity exercise is a regular daily activity, then for an athlete to perform at their best, fatty acids won't cut it, and their will have to be a dietary intake of carbohydrate that is sufficient to fuel the activity.

As for me personally? I dip in and out of ketosis on a regular basis. I do a bit of longer distance running, mixed with football and bodyweight exercises. My distance running is at a slow and relaxed tempo and I find that my blood sugars barely drop. For instance I completed a half marathon in March and never took anything on board during the run. Granted, I wasn't very fast but it was liberating being able to achieve that without having a hypo at the front of my thoughts. I do eat slightly more carb on the days before I play football or workout in order to fill up my glycogen stores, and I then eat low carb on my rest days to minimise spikes in my blood sugar. My opinion is slightly different to others on this boards as I think the natural state of the human body is to have periods of abundance where we use glucose as our preferred fuel source, intermixed with other periods where we adapt to using fat as our primary source, during periods of scarcity. I'm not concerned with my health long term. I look, feel and perform well on a cyclical ketogenic diet and eat, in my opinion, a nutritious diet rich in vegetables, which helps balance the acidic concerns raised. Breathing also helps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…