16 ms·
> your body closely regulates the level of glucose in your blood. Your brain would literally starve without it. Is this actually true? Having done the ketogeni
by dev_dull 7y ago
> your body closely regulates the level of glucose in your blood. Your brain would literally starve without it.
Is this actually true? Having done the ketogenic diet and bringing carbohydrates down to almost nothing, my brain definitely didn't starve. In fact, running on ketones was amazing.
- justsomeone88 7y agoNo. All the excess protein you likely consumed has actually increased your risk of cancer significantly.
- dplgk 7y agoSource?
- justsomeone88 7y agoStart here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R07FL1wVo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R07FL1wVo4
- caenorst 7y agoWhen did Youtube videos started to be reference source ? I can't find any academic references on her work despite her putting "Ph.D" title after her name on every plateform existing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- frisco 7y agoThis statement isn't supported by any real evidence. In fact, a lot of actual research supports the idea of keto for improving outcomes in some types of cancer.
- surge 7y agoKetogenic diets limit protein too, since your body can process protein and turn it into glucose. I don't know what you're talking about when you say excess given its a high fat, low protein, and very low carbohydrate diet.
- zadokshi 7y agoStrawman logic. You might find some sources that say this but people involved in the science don’t argue this point at all.
- dev_dull 7y agoMaybe other people did keto differently than me, but my protein stayed exactly the same. I just switched carbs with fat.
- emptybits 7y agoThe very next sentence in the article answers your question, doesn't it? > "If you do not consume enough carbohydrates in your diet, your body will synthesize the glucose you need."
- molmalo 7y agoIt's addressed here: >If you do not consume enough carbohydrates in your diet, your body will synthesize the glucose you need.
- ilyaeck 7y agoWe are down to anecdotal evidences here. So as another anecdote, a guy I know went on a carb-free diet and developed diabetes as a result. His body lost the ability to process sugar. Bottom line, most people needs a balanced diet - including carbs that are one of the pillars of nutrition. A given individual's body may be able to compensate for the imbalance on its own, but let's not generalize that to the entire population.
- markdown 7y agoHow do we know he wouldn't have developed diabetes anyway?
- maximente 7y agothis makes no sense biochemically. your hypothesis seems to be that a lack of carbohydrates (read: sugar) caused an individual to develop diabetes, but "diabetes" generalizes down to: - the body (pancreas) does not produced insulin at all (type I) - the body's cells are resistant to the produced insulin (type II) we should be able to basically rule out type II because there should have largely been no insulin produced by this individual (glucagon would take priority due to low blood sugar), so insulin resistance seems super unlikely. and type I has a mix of factors but they are largely all autoimmune, where various pancreatic cells are destroyed by the body itself, causes generally unknown. "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away. i realize you're probably not biologically trained but that statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. so which form of diabetes did this individual get diagnosed with?
- baked_ziti 7y ago> "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away. I have no idea as to the validity of this anecdote but the idea isn't unprecedented. For example, correcting an iodine deficiency can cause the same thyroid issues that a deficiency can cause.
- 7y ago
- TimSchumann 7y agoThe amount of carbohydrates you need in your diet to survive is exactly zero. They’re a non-essential macronutrient. The amount of glucose you need in your blood stream to keep everything running smoothly is a very small amount easily produced by your body through a process called gluconeogenesis. I went 60 days sans any calories and my body self regulated glucose just fine.
- omarchowdhury 7y agoYou went 60 days without eating?
- selectodude 7y agoMaybe he ate nothing but protein? I don’t even know...
- kylebenzle 7y agoOne guy saying he set a world record for longest time not eating and another person saying they think protein has no calories? What has happened to HN, have you all gone full retard?
- robotbikes 7y agoI looked at his comment history and found 37 weeks ago that he says he only drank water and salt the first 30 days and added supplements the last 30 so I'm pretty sure he meant no calories. I also don't think that is a world record by any means. I found this site where someone they cite a 1972 NIH study of someone who fasted for 382 days but evidently I can't paste in this android client. Hunger strikes have definitely gone on for longer than 60 days. Water is essential but the body can subsist for a lot longer without food.
- norswap 7y agoI think it was a typo and he meant 60 days without carbohydrates.
- sov 7y ago> Is this actually true? It kinda depends on what exactly they mean. Is it true that if you had zero glucose available in your bloodstream at all your brain would be unable to function? Yes. Is it true that if nothing you ate contained any glucose your brain would starve? No. There's a process called gluconeogenesis which produces more than enough glucose for your brain to function no matter how few carbs you eat.
- kingkawn 7y agoIn the diet you describe the body would preferentially reserve all glucose for the brain and run the rest on ketones. The body can manufacture glucose when needed from other energy sources but it’s an energy intensive biochemical process and not ideal for efficient use of available nutrients.
- DrScump 7y agothe body would preferentially reserve all glucose for the brain No, because the brain can use ketone bodies as fuel. Some other organs (such as the heart) cannot.
- kingkawn 7y agoAlways happy to find out new understandings of physiology and biochemistry so I dove back into some research this morning after seeing your comment. The brain does use ketones in starvation sitautions, but it always needs to use some glucose, so over time the available glucose ends up redirected there. From what I can find it appears that the heart does utilize ketone bodies for fuel, contrary to what you are asserting. There is correlation to heart failure, possibly from stress in utilizing an energy source with less efficient bioavailability. For simplicity here's the wiki link as a summary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies I'd love to see the research that shows your point in more detail.
- atwebb 7y agoIt was in the next line: Your brain would literally starve without it. If you do not consume enough carbohydrates in your diet, your body will synthesize the glucose you need.
- dev_dull 7y agoSo then you don’t need to eat any carbohydrates at all? I’m really confused by the statement. You’ll never starve your brain by not eating carbs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zadokshi 7y agoYour brain needs glucose. When you are on keto, your body produces glucose for your brain.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]