Low carb vs Keto

(Chris Kornelsen) #1

Just listening to Peter bruckner talk and it was a really good one. He was saying low carb is below 120g a day. Keto below 30. But he made a decent point saying humans thrive between 0-120g and you just need to find where you do. I really felt that was a great statement and observation. Was wondering what anyone else thought of this? Keto cant be the end all be all answer to every human, I mean many societies like the blue zones are more paleo and thrive. I personally love keto I’m not planning to go to low carb paleo anytime soon but this just made me curious.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #2
(Bob M) #3

I think if I knew what I know now in my 20s, I’d be paleo/primal (former no dairy, latter with dairy) and be fine. Heck, I was able to eat very low fat, very high carb for a long time, but I was exercising like crazy too.

Once you’ve had 20+ years of beer, pizza, ice cream (in that order for me), that takes a toll. Keto (with fasting) is the quickest way to “reverse” that damage.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #4

To my mind the distinction between “low-carb” and “keto” is absurd. You are either eating below your carb tolerance, in which case your insulin will be low enough to permit you to get into ketosis, or you are eating above your tolerance, in which case your blood sugar and insulin will be causing you problems and preventing you from getting into ketosis.

My idea of “low-carb” is anything below your tolerance, which also makes it keto. Anything too high to be keto is “high-carb” in my book. I see no benefit to eating a diet that is above your carb tolerance, regardless of whether the rest of the world considers it “low-carb” or not.

(PJ) #5

That’s true, and I suppose it also makes it very temporal in reference. What is low-carb right now – compared to 300 carbs a day?! – is a different number than what would have been low-carb in 1945 or what will be low-carb in 2045 (please God let it get better, not worse).

Low is a “relative” word and has no meaning whatever without some comparison to something else.

So one can measure it by the fuzzy borderline of decent ketosis – then low means low “for you.” One can measure it by the media of modern mainstream – then low means “compared to the excesses recommended so you will be lucratively and gradually more ill all your life.” Unfortunately there isn’t any way of using the word “low” and having it be meaningful to everybody.

A ketogenic diet, or VLCKD as it used to be called, was whatever kept you decently ketogenic, which was usually around 30 but some like Atkins started at 20 and some (Phinney Volek etc.) say 50. But the point was it was ketogenic. There was LC and VLC and VLCKD and only the KD at the end meant “under your ketogenic level” technically.

The problem is that ‘low carb’ “comparative to 300 a day” can also be “125 carbs a day” which is what the American Diabetes Association, while simultaneously recommending you eat the food pyramid, made as a suggestion to people years ago. That was lower than standard it is true but it certainly will not work for much of anybody who doesn’t already have an extremely robust metabolism. Which unfortunately people driven to the point of T2 (or on the way to it, like most the nation) do not.

I would call anything over 50 ecc which is the phinney/volek ketogenic general reference point, “moderate carb.” What happened to the moderate? How come we’re now calling 120 lowcarb (since when?).

Why do we keep letting mainstream media define our terms anyway. That’s the cornerstone of about a million problems right now, only one of which is carbohydrates.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #6

I think the issue is primarily a matter of degree. Yes, you can define ‘low carb’ to be whatever results in ketosis. But is ketosis necessary for overall health? I suspect not. If one is type 2 diabetic, pre-diabetic and/or insuline resistant, then I agree that ketosis is probably necessary to reverse and reestablish. If not, then probably it’s not. A lot of people don’t eat keto and don’t get diabetes, etc. ‘Lower carb’ is certainly better than SAD, even if it’s not ‘low carb/keto’.

(Joey) #7

Lacking any hard science never stopped me from having an opinion …

I find it hard to imagine that the body has a hard inflection point - below which one is in ketosis and above which one is not. I picture it less like a hard “knee” curve (as in an audio compression limiter) and mire if a softer curve. Perhaps a range, within which the primary metabolic energy source transitions, and a blended zone involving both ketosis and glycolysis in between - since the body still metabolizes some amount of both even at the more extreme ends of the spectrum of one’s carb intake, no?

It seems odd to me that the body would be quite so binary in an explicit on/off manner.

Anyone got any hard science to dismiss my (un)educated guess?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #8

I agree with @PaulL that we all have a ‘tolerance point’ as he defined it. Ketosis is a binary condition: you’re either in it or not. If you’re in it, you will synthesize ketones, if not then not. Being ‘in ketosis’ brings a host of metabolic and other benefits which make ketosis a worthwhile condition to be in. However, in a broader sense ketosis is a tool to retrain/condition our metabolism to burn fat. That is a process that resembles your ‘blended zone’. It takes time. That’s why I hope the Lumen device proves to be useful.

(PJ) #9

Keto does have a sort of spectrum though Michael. I mean you can call ‘any trace of ketones’ being ketogenic, but it’s not like being pregnant or dead. :rofl: You can be barely in ketosis or extremely in ketosis, in terms of “degree.” So I’d say there is a sort of range, not a hard cutoff. Hmn. Damn it I’m about to win this debate for you because I just realized that technically, there will be for each person a point where they are no longer even at the lowest degree of ketones, in which case, for them, that is an either/or point.

I hate it when this happens…

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #10

:+1:

Aside from β-hydroxybutyrate where there is evidence that more is better, ketones are simply a marker that your metabolism is processing fatty acids. After all is said and done, ketones are a by-product of fatty acid metabolism. If you have measurable ketones it means you are metabolizing fatty acids more than glucose. How many ketones don’t really mean much because you might or might not be synthesizing and/or utilizing them efficiently. That’s why I’m so excited by the potential of the Lumen device to measure actual fat/glucose burn in real time.

(Full Metal KETO AF) #11

It is possible to eat a large amount of carbs and remain in ketosis. There are two ways that I know of.

•Eating only starch without added fat or protein…sometimes called the potato diet or potatosis.

•Depleting your glycogen stores with extreme endurance sport as Peter Attila speaks about in this article.

https://peterattiamd.com/ketones-carbohydrates-can-co-exist/

I would not be capable of either! :cowboy_hat_face:

(mole person) #12

It’s not binary anymore than gluconeogenesis is binary. Almost everyone, (@RightNOW is correct. Those with very deranged metabolisms are exceptions) whether on a ketogenic diet or not is producing ketones sometimes. And except when fasting, all of us are also not producing ketones sometimes.

The question is how much fatty acid metabolism is going on and how often. Most people on a SAD may be only metabolizing fat for fuel for an hour or two in the wee hours of the night, whereas, someone eating ketogenically on a 18/6 feeding window is nearly always chewing on their fat stores while the replenishment periods are much shorter.

I completely disagree that levels of ketogenesis don’t matter. I know for me literally everything changes between detecting trace and medium on the urine sticks. At trace I still feel like a carb burner. My mood is lower, my energy is tanked, I’m tired the first half of every day, I have brain fog, and I gain fat steadily, albeit slowly. At medium all of that is reversed. Also, I can still show trace ketones while consuming over 80 grams of carbs a day including a chocolate bar. But it’s not good enough to make me feel any of the benefits of being ‘ketogenic’.

(Joey) #13

@amwassil Sounds like you are overstating the case a bit here…

If we can agree that even heavy carb-eaters wind up producing ketones to some degree while sleeping (lest their brains die off after a few hours), then this begs the question:

Is there one instant when they are in a pure glycolytic state… and then the next instant when they are in a pure ketotic state?

Like an ON/OFF light switch, rather than a dimmer paddle?

Hard to imagine (for me, at least) that such a binary metabolic switch is how our bodies actually work.

By extension, does our “fat adaption” occur at some moment (e.g., 2:17pm on Sept 15th)? Or does one’s body begin ramping up ketone production (= enter into ketosis) gradually over a period of days or weeks - as the organs/muscles/brain increase their demand for an alternative energy source?

I’m no scientist but from various descriptions I’ve come across I’ve gotten the impression that few of our metabolic processes are black or white. As with most everything else studied in the natural sciences, we find gradations of overlapping processes underway.

So, does this sound like a reasonable clarification as to whether ketosis (vs. glycolysis) is a binary condition?

(Joey) #14

@Ilana_Rose :+1: Yes, indeed. Everything you’ve said :slight_smile:

(Jane) #15

Lowering your carbs can improve your health even if you don’t lower them enough to get into ketosis.

My 85-yo Dad is an example of this. Type 2 diabetic on Metformin (no insulin). His A1c and weight was creeping up and his doctor told him to lower his carbs to under 100 and eat only complex carbs. He thinks doctors are Gods and wouldn’t consider a keto diet unless his doctor recommended it, in spite of my example.

He did. Then once he got used to that he strives for under 50. He is very sedentary so likely not in ketosis. He eats no seed oils thanks to his girlfriend.

His A1c dropped below pre-diabetic after 3 months and he is back to his high school weight (he only needed to lose 10-15 lbs).

(Chris Kornelsen) #16

This is all super interesting to read. Scientifically speaking I wonder if there is really huge benefits to actual ketosis for long periods of if the human body is at peak when it dips in and out maybe seasonally or some sort of interval? From my view keto seems tobe this “cure all” because all of western disease seems to stem from this insanity or carbs and processed foods. But in reality ketosis 24/7 isnt fully and totally natural? Although I do tend to believe early humans would have predominantly ate animals for nutrients

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #17

I think our ancestors were mostly in ketosis 24/7 simply from necessity. In my opinion it’s wrong to think they could derive anything more than occasional and minimal sustenance from plants simply because plants prior to the agricultural revolution were mostly cellulose. People tend to forget that the fruit and vegetables we know today did not exist or were very different and less edible during most of human evolution.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #18

@SomeGuy @Ilana_Rose To some extent I agree with you that describing ketosis as ‘binary’ might be an exaggeration. One of the things I hope to accomplish with the Lumen device is to determine just how binary or not. Here’s an RER table that makes it look like fat/carb burn is a uniformly sliding scale:

But does it work like that in the real world? Or is this chart just a math exercise? We know that glucose and insulin in any concentration above a base line interfere with ketogenesis and lipolysis. At some point they literally block both from occurring. At what point? At what concentration? Is the blockage total or not? Does insulin act like an on/off switch that at some concentration flips on/off, or is it more like a rheostat? Is there some non-zero base line for ketones and lipolysis?

I often jokingly tell people who think ketosis is something unnatural that pretty much everyone goes into ketosis before breakfast after the glucose from supper has burned out. But is that literally true? I don’t think it applies to folks who are diabetic, prediabetic or insulin resistant. That’s a lot of people! I think their glucose and/or insulin concentration most likely remains high enough 24/7 to block or severely limit ketogenesis and lipolysis. Some folks on this forum who are in ketosis and have been for a long time report that their glucose is highest and ketones lowest before breakfast. The so-called ‘dawn phenomenon’. What’s going on with that?

I think we can all agree that we’re trying to understand a very dynamic and variable system. And simplification is sometimes misleading. I know I’m guilty of it from time to time. So I appreciate a reminder.

(Joey) #19

Appreciate your reply. Your comment below raises a thought…

Next time someone expresses doubt that ketosis is a natural state, you might remind them that ketosis is the metabolic state into which they were born and nursed. And then they stayed in ketosis for many more months or even years … depending on how quickly their parents began turning them into carb junkies. :wink:

(Chris Kornelsen) #20

Were they less or more? I feel processing them would make them less edible. In nature wouldnt plants and fruits have been far more nutritious and edible?