Re: Insulin, was The Warrior Diet

[Guest guest]

>In the interview he said the body " adjusts to cortisol. " I wonder if he

>meant the body gets used to such high amounts of cortisol or if he meant the

body

>adapts by secreting less cortisol as it gets a handle on stabilizing blood

>sugar. I *hope* he meant the latter.

>

>Chris

I hope so too. If I get too much cortisol though, I'd think I'd end up

with high blood sugar. I suspect both happen though -- maybe as

a society we usually do an insulin/cortisol seesaw hourly

and on the WD you end up with higher levels of cortisol all day,

and higher levels of insulin at night, but neither at " overdose " levels.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>You're so sweet! It's not difficult for me, I love to talk about

>myself!

Well, I guess you fit right into this group then ... :-)

>It is fascinating for research, and I don't mind talking about it. I

>was first diagnosed as Type II because of late onset (I was 40), and

>that was hard because I was on pills which didn't do the job (they

>only work if you're still making insulin). When I finally was put on

>insulin by a specialist, it got much easier, because I can be much

>more flexible. And insulin actually works!

I'm reading that a combo of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes is becoming

common -- " late onset Type 1 " or something like that.

>Well, maybe most folks don't get digestive distress from coconut oil,

>but I do, also from fresh coconut and coconut milk. Seems odd as I

>am part Hawaiian! I can eat a little if it's cooked. I cook hash

>browns in 1 tablespoon coconut oil and 1 tablepoon butter, and that

>is okay.

A lot of people get cramping from MCT, (in coconut oil) and have to start

out gradually. But it's a different kind of problem than people get who can't

digest fat. Fat takes bile to digest, and some people lack proper amounts

of bile. MCT goes directly from the portal vein in the stomach into the

liver, where it goes into the blood and gets stored in the cells as

triglycerides,

and it can be used for easy energy (like carbs). But it doesn't require insulin

to process, which is why the bodybuilders like it, and it doesn't get stored as

fat, which is also why they like it. It also increases your metabolism, esp.

if you have low thyroid.

MCT IS a fat, but it's very short chain, which is why the body doesn't need

to break it down.

-- Heid

[Guest guest]

,

This is great! For years I've read in various places that fats have

no effect on blood sugar, when I knew that a lot of fat DOES raise my

blood sugar. This explanation really matches my experience. Thanks

for posting it! That part about needing insulin for blood sugar only

since sugar and white flour have dominated our eating shows why Type

II diabetes is on the rise.

Ann

>

> Here is an interesting post from another list (I have stripped it

of all

> identifying information).

>

>

>

>

>

> This page shows the insulin and blood sugar effect of various foods.

> It demonstrates that foods with protein DO stimulate insulin. Mono-

> unsaturated fat is neutral with regard to insulin. Foods like nuts,

> avocados, and olives stimulate hardly any rise in insulin or

glucose.

> http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/insulin.htm

>

> Saturated and polyunsaturated fat magnify insulin response. Adding

> sugars to protein (esp jelly beans) causes the greatest increase of

> insulin levels. This is probably why XXXX notes benefits from eating

> honey with meat and other animal protein. It multiples the healing

> and assimilation of nutrients.

> http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/giobesity.php

>

> The evolutionary purpose of insulin was NOT to control blood sugar

> levels. That is a recent adaptation we've been forced to make now

> that our bodies are confronted with refined carbs like white flour

> and refined sugar. The original function of insulin was to help

> the body after prolonged famine. The bodies that were the most

> efficient at utilizing nutrients from infrequent feasts passed

> on their genes, and this is what we have today ( " Warrior Diet " ).

>

> High insulin levels are good, provided they aren't a pathological

> response to unstable blood sugar (diabetes, hypo/hyper- glycemia).

> They show that your body is absorbing the proteins and fats from

> foods, and using them to heal. However, if you eat an excess of

> carbohydrates with fat and protein, it forms AGEs and your food

> is converted into stored glycogen or body fat.

> http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/aug2001_report_ages_01.html

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm reading that a combo of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes is becoming

> common -- " late onset Type 1 " or something like that.

>

Yes, that seems to be me. I have insulin resistance, which is

characteristic for Type II, but had to go on insulin within the first

2 years, which is not.

Meanwhile, a coworker who is definitely Type I (insulin dependent

since age 9) is about as overweight as I am, and takes the same

amount of insulin, indicating insulin resistance. My endocrinologist

told me the two types are not as distinct from each other as is

commonly believed. Responses are highly individual.

> A lot of people get cramping from MCT, (in coconut oil) and have to

start

> out gradually. But it's a different kind of problem than people get

who can't

> digest fat. Fat takes bile to digest, and some people lack proper

amounts

> of bile. MCT goes directly from the portal vein in the stomach into

the

> liver, where it goes into the blood and gets stored in the cells as

triglycerides,

> and it can be used for easy energy (like carbs). But it doesn't

require insulin

> to process, which is why the bodybuilders like it, and it doesn't

get stored as

> fat, which is also why they like it. It also increases your

metabolism, esp.

> if you have low thyroid.

>

> MCT IS a fat, but it's very short chain, which is why the body

doesn't need

> to break it down.

Thanks for that explanation. Hopefully I can build up my tolerance --

I like the idea of a fat that doesn't store as fat!

Ann

[Guest guest]

>> I think it's often confused with

Atkins' plan, the media always seemed to lump them together as " high

protein " . <<

Yes, I think so too.... we surely do live in a very fat-phobic culture!

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> Moreover, the latter was in an FAQ section. So some brain-dead health

reporter who wanted to write a review of Atkins but didn't want to read the book

could have read the FAQ section as a form of " cliff notes " and should have come

away with the same clear impression that I did. <<

ROFL, well, as a dues paying member of the dreaded media I would take offense,

except that I begin to think that a qualification for getting hired as a

reporter these days is, in fact, total brain death.... and not just on the

health beat!

Christie

[Guest guest]

>Heidi

>

>Please don't ask me to quote the source, as I don't keep links, but I

>believe that the Inuit and other tribes ate the fatty parts of the

>animals they killed. They would eat the brain, the fats, and feed

>lean meats to the animals, and the organ meats to the children. Most

>calories were from fat, only a few from protein (eg fish)

>

>Jo

Jo:

I've read that ... I also read the account of living with the Inuit where

they were eating raw fish every day during the winter. Raw fish would

have some fat, but not an extraordinary amount. I totally believe

that they ate the fat whenever they could get it, but according

to most accounts, most tribes and the Inuit went through " feast/famine "

periods, and the whales and seals were not available year round.

At any rate, the question

would be, lacking carbs, at exactly what point does the body " decide " to

use protein for glucose? And would this point change for populations

that habitually lacked carbs?

I ask because being in a true ketogenic state takes MORE calories,

and the Inuit presumably used up a lot of calories already just

keeping warm, and nature tends to opt for the most efficient

use of calories possible. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm

guessing that tigers, for example, are not " in ketosis " most

of their lives, that they turn protein into glucose regularly.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/21/03 5:57:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

jopollack2001@... writes:

> Please don't ask me to quote the source, as I don't keep links, but I

> believe that the Inuit and other tribes ate the fatty parts of the

> animals they killed. They would eat the brain, the fats, and feed

> lean meats to the animals, and the organ meats to the children. Most

> calories were from fat, only a few from protein (eg fish)

>

Jo,

Steffanson noted this somewhere, but I believe I read it in a secondary

source, or someone quoted one of his books on this list.

According to Sally ALL of the groups Price studied had a constant protein

percentage being within 15%-20% of calories.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/21/03 6:20:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> High insulin levels are good, provided they aren't a pathological

> response to unstable blood sugar (diabetes, hypo/hyper- glycemia).

> They show that your body is absorbing the proteins and fats from

> foods, and using them to heal. However, if you eat an excess of

> carbohydrates with fat and protein, it forms AGEs and your food

> is converted into stored glycogen or body fat.

Without proper background knowledge I'm going to jump ahead of myself and say

the first statement in this paragraph is false. Following the logic of the

post, insulin levels should be high after a feast, and low when fasting. Your

ability to secrete lots and lots of insulin in response to a meal while needs

miniscule amounts in the absence of said meal is an indication of your ability

to properly utilize insulin. On the other hand, high fasting insulin levels

indicates your body can't properly utilize the insulin because of insulin

resistance, and would then be deficient in utilizing nutrients from a big meal

because the high insulin response would be proportionately less effective.

The author probably wan't implying that *fasting* insulin levels should be

high, but when people say you should have low insulin levels, they mean fasting

levels. Moreover, a given level of insulin indicates nothing about the cells

response to insulin, and so an abnormally high insulin response to a meal is

more likely to indicate that your cells are resistant to insulin rather than

you are secreting a healthy amount.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/22/03 3:00:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Raw fish would

> have some fat, but not an extraordinary amount

The wild salmon I get has 10 grams of fat per 4 oz serving, making it roughly

50% calories from fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/22/03 2:32:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It REALLY depends on the species, and Steffanson (I think it was him)

> didn't specify the species. Sablefish are REALLY fat.

That's true, but the Inuit opted for fatty foods, and animals with tons of

blubber as well as meat. Steffanson might not identify species (I don't know as

I've shelved My Life... for now but will get back to it some day), but he did

estimate the diet to be 75% fat, so the species is irrelevant since we only

care to know it so we know the fat content. And Price *did* talk about

species. I don't have my own copy of NAPD so maybe someone else can look it up.

But > it still doesn't answer the question ... everyone assumes the Inuit

> were constantly in a state of ketosis, but did anyone ever *measure*

> the ketones in the urine?

I don't konw... Steffanson did test their urine for certain acids; I have no

idea if he tested for ketones.

Do the Inuit still eat that way so someone

> can test them?

>

No, the Inuit stopped eating that way in Price's day, as he found the modern

Inuit to be eating canned food and whanot and I believe they were the ones he

found who considered it shameful to catch your own food. Even Steffanson, who

iirc was earlier than Price, was dealing in large part with modernized Inuit.

> It has a chart after this that shows the calories and BMI of various

> peoples --

> But the Inuit aren't all that skinny -- granted the BMI isn't

> a great indicator because it doesn't take muscle into account,

> but I'd think people who live in cold climates SHOULD store

> more fat, like walruses do.

And which Inuit? People always say, " look at the Inuit, they die when

they're 25 " but ignore the fact that the Inuit don't any longer eat the

traditional

Inuit diet. People were saying the same thing in Price's day, iirc, and I

think Price comments on the gibberish in NAPD. ( Robbins is fond of this

gibberish and lists them as his number one example of how meat makes you die

early). Steffanson found the life expectancies from church records to be

similar

to ours, many in the 70s, some in the 80s, and a spattering in their 90s. So

I think it reasonable that this information is completely worthless.

And I think you're completely right that people in colder climates would

naturally have higher body fat.

>If the Inuit were really in

>ketosis though, they should be skinnier on that many calories,

>because ketosis burns more calories of food for the same

>amount of energy.

How can it? A calorie *is* a measure of energy, so I don't see how two

different calories can produce two different amounts of energy. I don't know

the

science behind it, maybe you've read something I'm missing, but isn't that like

saying a mile on grass is longer in distance than a mile on dirt?

> The native people of the north appear to have a natural resistance to

> ketacidosis.

If I correctly understood Idol in a now-ancient post, this essentially

proves that they *didn't* burn protein for energy, since muscle is broken down

during ketoacidosis.

By the way, didn't Price find the Inuit he studied buried fish in ice to

preserve them? So shouldn't the well-off Inuit have eaten the fatty foods they

valued most all year long? If other tribes were less fortunate, they were

probably more likely to have health problems.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/22/03 4:14:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Anyway, ketones are the byproducts of incomplete metabolism of foods, and a

>

> person in ketosis is flushing those ketones out of his body without ever

> completely metabolizing them, so a person in (controlled) ketosis needs

> more food to produce the same amount of usable energy. This is one reason

> ketosis aids in weight loss.

Ah, I see. So ketones don't have less potential energy but the energy just

isn't used. That makes sense.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Sorry to make this a second post, but, on the subject, presumably someone who

was accustomed to ketosis as a way of life and who had a higher need for body

fat would simply be eating more calories to maintain that body fat?

Chris

In a message dated 8/22/03 4:14:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Anyway, ketones are the byproducts of incomplete metabolism of foods, and a

>

> person in ketosis is flushing those ketones out of his body without ever

> completely metabolizing them, so a person in (controlled) ketosis needs

> more food to produce the same amount of usable energy. This is one reason

> ketosis aids in weight loss.

>

> >>If the Inuit were really in

> >>ketosis though, they should be skinnier on that many calories,

> >>because ketosis burns more calories of food for the same

> >>amount of energy.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

A homeopath did this or my cat, it was amazing how much it helped him

with his food allergies. He was also over weight, probably from the grain

in his kibble, though it was a great brand they still put those fillers in. He

was tearing his face up so we put him on a raw elimination diet and he's

doing great now.

The natural cortisol replacement helped him within a few hours with the

itchiness and he was almost back to his old self as far as not being a

grouch that basically slept all day and never played anymore. He's a big

boy about 20 lbs now that he lost some weight on his new diet. Biggest

darn housecat I've ever seen (in size, not weight!).

She said his adrenals were stressed and that we'd be giving them a

break, so I have to wonder with my " hypoglycemia " problems if it wasn't

cortisol also and that my adrenal glands are stressed. Wouldn't be

surprising as I have problems with my thyroid.

Dawn

> I don't know what ORI meant but Mck Jefferies asserts the latter. In

> fact he often (or at least he used to, he is about 95 years old if

> still alive) gave patients 10 mg of non synthetic cortisol if they had

> normal levels or cortisol but had low reserve.That was usually short

> term. He felt that it gave the adrenals a " rest " and a chance to

> recover. He felt that hypoglycemia was a symptom of low adrenal

> reserve. I guess normal output of cortisol for an adult is 30 to 40

> mg. He did not use the synthetic varieties. Irene

[Guest guest]

Hey !

How about the media? That is where i first learned about the diet and

*THEY* called it a high protein diet though the way they liked to malign it

at the time you'd think they would have stressed the high fat! =)

So, i found myself calling it that until I started learning from you all... and

I've even read the book.

Dawn

> I'm always baffled as to why people continually refer to Atkins as a

> high- protein diet when it is clearly a high-fat diet. The only

> explanation I can come up with, other than willful ignorance, is that

> the low-fat mentality has been drilled so deeply into their minds that

> they simply cannot comprehend the idea that someone, a cardiologist no

> less, might actually recommend a high-fat diet. Curiously, the very

> same people sometimes refer to it as a " steak and eggs " diet, yet both

> of those foods derive a majority of their calories from fat.

>

> --

> Berg

> bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>The wild salmon I get has 10 grams of fat per 4 oz serving, making it roughly

>50% calories from fat.

>

>Chris

It REALLY depends on the species, and Steffanson (I think it was him)

didn't specify the species. Sablefish are REALLY fat. But

it still doesn't answer the question ... everyone assumes the Inuit

were constantly in a state of ketosis, but did anyone ever *measure*

the ketones in the urine? Do the Inuit still eat that way so someone

can test them?

I tried to look this up and came up with some interesting stats

on Inuit (granted this site is anti-low carb! but the pro-low-carb

sites all say " look at the Inuit " with no stats)

It has a chart after this that shows the calories and BMI of various peoples --

said chart seems to indicate (like Price's research) that people

eat all kinds of combinations of meat and plant food, and

that this isn't the " key " to whether or not they do well. But

the Inuit aren't all that skinny -- granted the BMI isn't

a great indicator because it doesn't take muscle into account,

but I'd think people who live in cold climates SHOULD store

more fat, like walruses do. If the Inuit were really in

ketosis though, they should be skinnier on that many calories,

because ketosis burns more calories of food for the same

amount of energy. So perhaps they convert the protein into

glucose more readily than other populations ... but I

can't find any info on it one way or the other (the quote

at the end seems to indicate that perhaps that is the case,

but, no references).

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/highfat.htm

When we look at groups of people pursuing hunter-gatherer or other simple

lifestyles today, we do not find that those who eat the most meat are the

skinniest or that the ones eating mostly plant foods are the fattest. The

following data is from " Food for Thought " by R. Leonard, from Scientific

American, November, 2002. All of the peoples below, except those in the USA, are

living rather basic lifestyles. This data also indicates that something besides

the choice of animal or plant products in the diet is responsible for the amount

of weight carried by the body. Weight is measured as BMI, Body Mass Index, and

the higher the number, the greater the weight per height. A BMI of under 18.5 is

considered underweight, while a BMI of 25 or above is considered overweight.

Ironically, the Inuit (Eskimos), the people with the nearly all-meat diet who

inspired the notion that eating meat could keep you thin, are among the

heaviest. Looking at these diets, it seems that the total calories is probably

more important than their source, with the Evenki being the only strong

exception. Leonard points out that the Evenki diet is low in fat (20% fat vs.

USA 35%).

http://www.dryden.net/~hecopeco/

Interesting Information:

The native people of the north appear to have a natural resistance to

ketacidosis. This is because they have adapted over countless generations to be

well suited to their environment. In the cold arctic environment that their

ancestors lived on their was no trade to bring in foods high in carbohydrates

and so the people could only eat fish and other animals which were low in

carbohydrate but high in protein and fat. As these the Inuit ate this food for

many generations they slowly became adapted to its adverse effects and no longer

seem to be affected by a high protein diet.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/22/03 6:04:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Soooo ... hence my theory that they have adapted to a high-protein

> diet and commonly convert the protein into glucose. Whether

> or not they are on a HEALTHY high protein diet, that would

> still hold true if the diet data was correct.

> Unless someone has info to the contrary (like, urine samples ...)

Perhaps we're dealing with just two different diets here. The modern Inuit

might eat mostly meat, but they eat *more* carbs than they used to, eat mostly

canned meats and whatnot, and live a much more sedantary lifestyle.

So if we're talking about modern Inuit here, who I don't know a whole lot

about, there are some issues to consider such as the fact that despite being

low-carb they have exposure to more imported carbs than before and in Southern

Alaska are even growing potatoes, which they might not be well adapted to, they

are not eating as much fat as they used to and are not going to great length to

secure salmon eggs and other highly nutrient-dense traditional foods, and

they are living off of subsidies from the oil industry rather than actually

going

out and getting their own food.

As to the *traditional* Inuit, they don't have a higher protein diet than

anyone else, so the question is moot.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/22/03 6:05:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The point I'm trying to make is, when is the body in state 1 vs. state 2?

> If the body can break down protein into glucose, then it won't

> go into state 2, because it takes very little glucose to throw the

> body back into state 1.

Heidi, I know I don't know the answer to this, but since only certain amino

acids are, afaik, glucogenic, and I don't know what portion of the amino acid

gets turned into glucose and what gets wasted, it would seem that this method

of energy production is rather wasteful as well. So, which is more wasteful?

I have no idea.

> Right, but if they are more resistant to ketoacidosis they might

> be more resistant to going into a ketogenic state too.

But if they aren't burning fat and they aren't burning protein and they don't

have any carbs in the diet, what the heck are they burning? Or is it

possible to burn protein for glucose while at the same time *not* being in

ketoacidosis?

> I.e. is it a REQUIREMENT that mammals be " in ketosis " if they

> are obligate carnivores? I don't think that is the case for tigers

> and lions etc. If tigers don't excrete ketones, then how to

> they get glucose? If they get it from protein, maybe some

> humans can too, even without 70% fat?

I have no idea whether lions and tigers (oh my!) are in ketosis. Have you

read they aren't or are you just assuming?

I don't know what you mean *without* 70% fat since my opinion is that the

high fat would make it less likely that you'd burn protein, but if you have a

diet that is 20% protein, 5% carbs, and 75% fat, and you need the 20% protein

for

you protein needs such as muscle-building, antibodies, enzymes, etc, etc,

like all of the other traditional cultures who all ate roughly that same amount

of protein, wouldn't you rather burn the fat, which you have an excess of, than

the protein, of which you have enough for your body's basic protein-related

needs?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Chris-

A calorie is a measure of the energy produced by burning a food in a

reaction vessel in a lab. It doesn't really have all that much bearing on

how energy is produced in the body except when you hold all other factors

equal.

Anyway, ketones are the byproducts of incomplete metabolism of foods, and a

person in ketosis is flushing those ketones out of his body without ever

completely metabolizing them, so a person in (controlled) ketosis needs

more food to produce the same amount of usable energy. This is one reason

ketosis aids in weight loss.

> >If the Inuit were really in

> >ketosis though, they should be skinnier on that many calories,

> >because ketosis burns more calories of food for the same

> >amount of energy.

>

>How can it? A calorie *is* a measure of energy, so I don't see how two

>different calories can produce two different amounts of energy. I don't

>know the

>science behind it, maybe you've read something I'm missing, but isn't that

>like

>saying a mile on grass is longer in distance than a mile on dirt?

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/22/03 7:31:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> There are studies showing people on high fat, low carb diets lose more

> weight eating MORE calories than people on low fat, lower calorie diets. We

may

> not " get " it, but it's still true. Calories are just a piece of the picture,

> definitely not all.

Oh, I " get " *that*-- what I didn't understand was how a calorie of one thing

can break down into more or less energy than a calorie of another thing, which

is separate from the effect any given food has on your metabolism. Though it

makes sense now-- the full caloric value of fats are not extracted when they

are processed into ketones into energy, so they contain the same energy but

some gets thrown away.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>If the Inuit were really in

>>ketosis though, they should be skinnier on that many calories,

>>because ketosis burns more calories of food for the same

>>amount of energy.

>

>How can it? A calorie *is* a measure of energy, so I don't see how two

>different calories can produce two different amounts of energy. I don't know

the

>science behind it, maybe you've read something I'm missing, but isn't that like

>saying a mile on grass is longer in distance than a mile on dirt?

Poorly worded on my part, but the basic ketosis theory goes something

like this (as I understand it):

1. Usually the body burns fat, with some glucose as a catalyst of sorts.

This is very efficient, and the body gets x units of energy from say, 100

calories of fat+glucose.

2. If the body doesn't have glucose, it burns fat incompletely,

creating ketones. Now the body gets x units of energy from, say, 150

calories.

If you are trying to lose weight, this is considered a good thing,

because the extra food just gets excreted as ketones (which you

test for in your urine). The basic idea is that you eat more calories

and still lose weight.

The point I'm trying to make is, when is the body in state 1 vs. state 2?

If the body can break down protein into glucose, then it won't

go into state 2, because it takes very little glucose to throw the

body back into state 1. The parents of kids on the ketogenic diet

have to be very careful about minute amounts of starch/sugar

for that reason.

I'm guessing that a lot of folks on so-called " ketogenic " diets (the

ones that allow up to 100 g of carbs) are not really in ketosis in

the same sense as the kids on the anti-seizure diet.

>> The native people of the north appear to have a natural resistance to

>> ketacidosis.

>

>If I correctly understood Idol in a now-ancient post, this essentially

>proves that they *didn't* burn protein for energy, since muscle is broken down

>during ketoacidosis.

Right, but if they are more resistant to ketoacidosis they might

be more resistant to going into a ketogenic state too.

I.e. is it a REQUIREMENT that mammals be " in ketosis " if they

are obligate carnivores? I don't think that is the case for tigers

and lions etc. If tigers don't excrete ketones, then how to

they get glucose? If they get it from protein, maybe some

humans can too, even without 70% fat?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Sorry to make this a second post, but, on the subject, presumably someone who

>was accustomed to ketosis as a way of life and who had a higher need for body

>fat would simply be eating more calories to maintain that body fat?

>

>Chris

Exactly. They'd need more calories. But that particular chart didn't indicate

that ... now the data may be useless because they may have been modern

Inuit, but it was from Scientific American which is usually pretty careful,

and it did specify that it was a mainly meat diet, and they specified the

average number of calories, which just wasn't high enough, I think,

to think that they were in a ketogenic state.

Soooo ... hence my theory that they have adapted to a high-protein

diet and commonly convert the protein into glucose. Whether

or not they are on a HEALTHY high protein diet, that would

still hold true if the diet data was correct.

Unless someone has info to the contrary (like, urine samples ...)

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I have no idea why, but I never received the email that Heidi is responding

to. Who's it from, Christie?

Unless it was explained elsewhere in the email, I personally do not see from

whence the conclusion is to be drawn that cats do not respond to a low-carb

diet by entering ketosis. The first email (which may or may not be complete for

all I know, damn ! :-P ) states that cats get their energy from " fat

and protein " which indicates to me that they must go into ketosis or else it

would all come from protein.

Are ketosis and protien burning (what's that called? proteoglucogenesis?

just making up words...) mutually exclusive?

Also, where is the conclusion being drawn from that ketosis is less efficient

than protein-burning?

Since I have no evidence one way or the other, reason tells me that ketosis

must be MORE efficient than protein-burning, or else the body would opt to

store excess calories in some form of protein storage rather than body fat,

whereas the body chooses to convert excess calories to fat, supposedly because

it is

the most efficient form of storage.

Chris

In a message dated 8/22/03 9:17:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >On a related note, cats especially did not evolve having any dietary

> carbohydrate, and obtain all their stored glucogen from the ingestion of

protein

> and fat. Even the die-hard kibble pushers in mainstream vet research are now

> acknowledging that feeding carbs to kitties is behind the epidemic of feline

> diabetes.

> >

> >As far as humans go, we unquestionably can get glucose from protein, but I

> expect that at 70 percent fat, this is a minor factor. Also, I have no idea

> how this all works once you don't want to lose any more weight. When I get

> there I'll let you know what happens to me. <G>

>

> OK, that answers my question. Cats are evolved to deal with turning protein

> into glucose, so they don't respond to a no-carb diet by going into ketosis.

> *In theory* some humans might do the same -- esp. isolated groups like the

> Inuit, who have done without carbs for a long time. It would not be a " minor

> factor " to them, because, like the cats, they were living off the same diet

for

> many generations, and the state of ketosis is less efficient, and we tend to

> gravitate to a state of the most efficiency.

>

> Whether or not in fact that is the case, would have to be answered by

> finding a group of Inuit living off a traditional diet and testing them. But

they

> don't look overly thin in the old pictures either, so in any case they can

> live off a no-carb diet and still be a bit plump.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>How can it? A calorie *is* a measure of energy, so I don't see how two

>different calories can produce two different amounts of energy. I don't

>know the

>science behind it, maybe you've read something I'm missing, but isn't that

>like

>saying a mile on grass is longer in distance than a mile on dirt?

Not really - a gallon of gas goes further in one car, than another - or in

highway vs city driving.

We metabolize foods differently from individual to individual, and also

different " fuels " are metabolized differently, more or less completely, and at

different rates. And then there is the problem of energy - with the deep

coma-like crash I would experience after a meal, for example, I was not likely

to burn off any fuel or stored fat after eating. But now that I have energy all

the time, from eating a ketogenic diet, I myself am much more active, have more

lean muscle (which burns more calories than fat), and just in general do not

seem to be in a " fat storage " mode.

There are studies showing people on high fat, low carb diets lose more weight

eating MORE calories than people on low fat, lower calorie diets. We may not

" get " it, but it's still true. Calories are just a piece of the picture,

definitely not all.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> Right, but if they are more resistant to ketoacidosis they might

be more resistant to going into a ketogenic state too.

I.e. is it a REQUIREMENT that mammals be " in ketosis " if they

are obligate carnivores? I don't think that is the case for tigers

and lions etc. If tigers don't excrete ketones, then how to

they get glucose? If they get it from protein, maybe some

humans can too, even without 70% fat? <<

I am getting posts out of order today.

Dogs and cats, large and small, evolved eating what we'd think of as a

" ketogenic " diet, but my understanding is that they are actually quite resistant

to ketosis as a state - researchers who want to put them into ketosis, mainly to

study ketogenic diets and seizure disorders, have a hard time doing that.

Nonetheless, anecdotally I have observed that most kibble-fed dogs and cats will

show health benefits, including weight loss, when put on a grain free, low

carb, high fat diet (raw, preferably), without calorie restriction. I wonder if

the few who don't do well might benefit from lower protein, higher fat diets,

despite this supposed resistance to ketosis.

On a related note, cats especially did not evolve having any dietary

carbohydrate, and obtain all their stored glucogen from the ingestion of protein

and fat. Even the die-hard kibble pushers in mainstream vet research are now

acknowledging that feeding carbs to kitties is behind the epidemic of feline

diabetes.

As far as humans go, we unquestionably can get glucose from protein, but I

expect that at 70 percent fat, this is a minor factor. Also, I have no idea how

this all works once you don't want to lose any more weight. When I get there

I'll let you know what happens to me. <G>

Christie