This is covered in my response above and link to the study. It appears it’s not a case of ‘lose’ but one of impairment. The Kraft results graph proves this in the case of those particular subjects, who incidentally were very metabolically healthy.
And there’s also my favourite line from these forums: You know you’re in ketosis when you are (a) eating very little carbohydrate and (b) breathing in and out.
This is speculation, and I doubt it’s warranted. Glucose metabolism is an ancient process, evolutionarily speaking, and almost all cells on the planet possess the ability. I suspect that genetic errors in glucose metabolism would be (and have been) weeded out fairly quickly from the gene pool. What human beings experience on a high-carbohydrate is, I have come to believe, a form of damage caused by what can essentially be characterised as self-abuse.
Glucose tolerance is what you make of it. “Reducing insulin secretion and circulating insulin concentrations” certainly does occur on a well-formulated ketogenic diet. This is precisely what I hoped would happen when I began eating this way. I refuse to believe it’s a bad thing, since I am no longer an undiagnosed diabetic and have shed enough fat to have a pretty good life.
I remind you that the insulin response to glucose is intended to prevent the damage caused by hyperglycaemia (which is as dangerous to the body as hypoglycaemia) but hyperinsulinaemia itself also causes damage, so a more efficient response to less insulin is a good thing, because it drives excess glucose out of the blood to places where it will cause less damage, while also reducing the damage from excess insulin.
I suspect the insulin response to glucose is probably how bears put on weight for their winter hibernation, but in their case, any damage from hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinaemia is only temporary and can be repaired over the winter. We human beings, with our year-round high-carbohydrate diet, don’t give our bodies enough time to recover from the onslaught of damage. The problem is that fear of fat has distorted our perception of what the proper human diet should be.
I will endeavour to produce further citations but I do not think the current study findings can be so easily dismissed.
The glucose spike shown in itself may be considered ‘pre-diabetic’ level, however, it is the area under the curve which is more akin to insulin resistance. The fact there has been a corresponding rise in insulin adds to this. As mentioned, one of the more interesting aspects of this particular study (and perhaps more persuasive) was the outstanding metabolic health of the participants.
As an aside, I’ve heard Tim Noakes talking about insulin resistance for long-term keto and he states something along the lines that provided you are not eating carbohydrates this shouldn’t be a worry.
Not to belabour the point, but please understand I am not dismissing the findings, just the authors’ interpretation of them. Yes, the body becomes more sensitive to serum glucose, and yes, insulin-resistance drops, and yes the study participants are metabolically healthier. But to interpret this to say that they are developing some strange inability to metabolise glucose is unwarranted, in my view. That’s all I’m saying.
What they consider a possibly bad thing, is precisely what I’m relying on my ketogenic diet to produce, because to me, it looks like a very good thing.
I’m in full agreement with @PaulL here. Something beneficial is being interpreted as ‘impairment’, due I suspect to the underlying assumption that the ‘carb/glucose eating paradigm’ is correct and ‘healthy’ for humans. What’s being ignored is that our species spent 3+ million years evolving mostly in a state of ketosis. The experiment with a ‘carb/glucose eating paradigm’ started only 10 thousand years ago. The results are not looking hopeful at this point.
As a numbers person, I measure everything. Prior to using the Keto protocol (10 years ago), I did a complete blood test and a DEXA scan. So as to give me a baseline. I then measured my blood ketones most mornings for a period of 12 weeks. Then I was re-tested. I knew what worked for me and what did not - I had empirical data. I was supported by my Dr. (MD) who is also a sport scientist. My approach while different does help in the beginning.
I eliminated everything that was white or could be white. I no longer ate non-fat products and liberally used fat and butter. My doc seems to think that those who have type O blood seem to thrive on this diet short-term. I do find that the previous meal sets you up for the next. I personally found the only time I could be carb-heavy (100grams+) and not put on extra weight was after exercise. I am sure that as you are a scientist, you have seen how scientists cherry-pick their evidence so that it is consistent with their theory. Bottom line, test, and measure and see what works for you.
And I presume you have the references to back up what you state? Feast and famine. They ate ab libitum - Whatever they could for their survival. The Inuit are widely understood to have rare genetic mutations that prevents them from entering ketosis. In the past decade, archaeologists have found near-universal presence of wild grain/legume residues, over 100k years. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248414000189
Thanks for the link. I think Stefansson is a very reliable data source for the overall diet of the Innu he lived with. They, and he, ate fat and meat. Plant contribution to their nutrition was negligible. Have you ever lived in the arctic? It’s a world where trees are called little sticks. It is beyond ludicrous to claim these folks derived significant nutrition from plants. If a genetic mutation does inhibit ketosis they nonetheless derived 99+% of their dietary nutrition from fat and meat. So such supposed mutation did not inhibit metabolism of fats and protein.
Just a reminder…
I’ve seen a few replies now back to the OP directly, so just want to reiterate that this particular person requested to be deleted, so is no longer a member of this forum. - But I left the thread in place for any possible discussions that may follow, which has indeed occurred. I just wanted to let those who have replied back to them, to simply do not expect a reply in kind from this person.
A table in the report of the famous experiment on Stefansson and Kirsten Andersen at Bellevue Hospital in 1928 shows that Andersen and Stefansson were in ketosis for the entire time their diet was exclusively meat (there were periods of illness when their diet was “mixed” and their urine showed no ketones).
The researchers use the term “meat” to include “both the lean and the fat portions of animals.” They further state:
The meat used included beef, lamb, veal, pork, and chicken. The parts used were muscle, liver, kidney, brain, bone marrow, bacon, and fat. While on lecture trips V. S. occasionally ate a few eggs and a little butter when meat was not readily obtainable. The carbohydrate content of the diet was very small, consisting solely of the glycogen of the meat. The men, except during short periods of special observation, ate as much as they wanted and proportioned the lean meat to the fat as they desired. V. S., in 31 days of special diet in the ward in which he was free from digestive disturbances, took an average of 0.81 kilos of meat per day while K. A. for 110 days averaged 0.70 kilos per day. The protein content of the diet ranged from 100 to 140 gm., the fat, from 200 to 300 gm., and the carbohydrate from 7 to 12 gm. The caloric value varied from 2000 to 3100 calories per day.
(Note that 15-25 per cent of the calories were derived from protein, 75-85 per cent from fat, and 1-2 per cent from carbohydrate.)
W. S. McClellan and E. F. Du Bois, “Prolonged meat diets with a study of kidney function and ketosis,” Clinical Calorimetry, vol. XLV, pp. 661-668.
My fave quote too
“At 64 to 67 years, Inuit life expectancy falls well short of Canada’s average of 79.5 years, which has steadily risen.” Statistics Canada
“Inuit now live as long as the average Canadian did in the 1940s.” Mary Simon, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization.
Ha, let’s not talk about who lived the longest or else good old Ancel Keys is going to win.
But do we have any evidence about what Ancel Keys actually ate? He had all sorts of ideas in the 1940s and 1950s but I bet he carried on eating a proper human diet himself whilst experimenting on and observing others.
At one stage he wanted to retract some of his conclusions about saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet (if I recall correctly) and was unable to do so as it went against public policy and commercial interests were too invested in the low fat food policy.
I’ve no idea. Perhaps his famous K Rations? I just mentioned that as an aside. It is a classic example of n=1. We have all heard of the grannies and papas who lived to a ripe old age despite their smoking, drinking habits, etc. I don’t think you can read anything into it.
There was an anecdote in one of the books I read (Nina’s maybe?) that someone caught Ancel Keys and a colleague eating bacon and eggs at a restaruant and called him out on it. He got mad!
Yep, just like some can eat all they want and never get fat - some can drink and smoke and live to be very old. Roll of the genetic dice.
In my own family the women who never smoked lived into their 80’s and remained vital until the end - those that did died in their 60’s/early 70’s with many health problems and lots of suffering.
And the older generations that got all their fat from the farm (saturated animal fat) lived the longest. Go figure.