"Ketosis-Lipolysis is not Ketoacidosis"


full article can be viewed at http://www.lowcarb.org/ketosis.html

Doreen

For those interested, an accurate explanation of how the body maintains its acid-base balance in states of health AND illness is web-posted in The Merck Manual of Medical Information. You can read it here.

Doreen

I think you should do a bit more study on biophysiology. First...the ketones don't make the blood acid. The body maintains the blood Ph in a very narrow range which does not vary by more than a few tenths of a percent at any one time. Above that narrow range, you are acidotic with serious symptoms that require hospitalization and below that narrow range, you are alkalotic which again would produce serious symptoms requiring hospitilization. I have yet to see a person post on this board that they required hospitalization for either condition due to being in ketosis. I myself have been following a low carb plan for 18 months without any such problem and there are others here who have been doing it for much longer without such problems. I've also mentioned before Dr. Bernstein who has been living quite well on no more than 30 grams of carb per day for more than 40 years and requires his patients to do the same...again no mention of hospitilization for acidosis or alkalosis or heart attacks brought on by acidic blood. Heart disease, strokes and diabetes are virtually unknown among the Inuits who follow a traditional diet which is practically carb free. I'll leave it to you to research that for yourself.
Second...when you maintain that all a person has to do to lose weight is eat less and exercise more, you completely discount the effects of insulin production on fat storage and fat release. You also fail to take into account the effects of other hormones, medications and medical conditions that greatly affect how easily a person can lose weight even with reduced calories and increase excercise on a "traditional" diet as you call it. Many (if not most) of the people here on this forum, including myself, have tried that route and failed miserably but found success with low carb. Millions of Americans have diabetes which by its very nature means that they are insulin resistant and carb intolerant (hundreds of thousands more have the disease and don't even know it). Hundreds of thousands of American women have PCOS which, again, by its very nature means that they are insulin resistant and carb intolerant. You need to do more research on insulin resistance and how that condition develops; there should be plenty of references and studies for you to find on the web.
Since you're taking a creationistic approach, the Bible does mention seasons and snow. Paleontologists also have a pretty good idea what climates were like at various times by studying fossils for a certain time period.
Lastly...no, people who follow a low carb lifestyle do not live in a state of ketosis forever and ever, only until their weight loss goal is achieved. By the time that they have progressed through ongoing weight loss, pre-maintainanace and then maintainace gradually increasing their carb levels as they go, most if not all, are no longer in ketosis by the time that they reach maintainace. They have simply found the correct balance of carbs, fat and proteins to maintain their weight loss on a permanent basis. Many low carb plans don't even recommend going into ketosis at all (Protein Power, The Schwarzbein Principle); not because they believe it to be harmful, but simply because they don't believe it to be necessary for weight loss.
Fat burning occurs (assuming that you have a normal metabolism and no insulin resistance) when calories taken in are less than what the body needs for basal metabolic functions plus daily activities. You cannot choose when or how long that fat burning process will last even with exercise and lowered calories; your body will burn the fat when it needs more calories. Assuming that caloric intake in lowered calorie diets is evenly spaced in 3 meals and 2 or so snacks; negative caloric balance would be pretty much a continuous thing and therefore so would lipolysis. Starvation begins when calories taken in are less than what is required to maintain basal metabolic functions which freqently happens in most calorie restricted diets recommended today. For example, the diet recommended to me several years ago by a doctor was 1,250 calories a day...well below my basal metabolic needs. In effect, he was recommending controlled starvation for me and it didn't even work. If the body even thinks it's being starved, it responds by lowering metabolic rates to preserve what stores it has; so much for your theory of tricking the body into thinking it's starving through ketosis. Yes, people who are starving are in ketosis, but the reverse does not hold true. The presence of ketones are not what tells the body it's starving; the lack of sufficient caloric intake does which is why you will see frequent reminders to people on this forum to make sure that they are getting sufficient calories on a daily basis.

Jonathan,

You have ignored my request to list the scientific journals and studies you claim to have read, and found biased.

So, I will wait for that list before I spend the time collecting the links posted here and on our website.

It is pointless to argue with someone who have already made up their mind, and refuses to share the scientific sources they claim led them to their beleifs.

As this is merely an unsubstantiated claim, this thread does not belong in the studies section. I will move this to the War Zone. If you list your supposed studies, we can move it this thread back to the studies section and discuss the actual studies, instead of your opinions. I still respect your opinion, but they're just opinions so far, and that's not enough as a scientific reference.

No disrespect, but I avoid arguments based on passion, and prefer facts.

Wa'il

Doreen:
I glanced at the excerpts and will read the full article later. I believe this is what I was looking for with my question.

Lisa:
> I think you should do a bit more study on biophysiology
I never said I was studied in that area. That's why I was asking this forum if Phil Kaplan's concept was possible or not.

I will also look into the insulin issue. Sounds interesting.

You are correct in saying that the Bible mentions seasons and snow. However, if you look at all the contexts where seasons are used and also contexts with fruit, you should notice some irregularities that indicate that fruit back then was most likely very plentiful and withstood seasons. Even the incredible hailstorm that God sent to Egypt during the exodus was not enough to destroy all the fruit - swarms of locusts had to do that job. But again, that's not the topic at hand, and we only have so much reliable information to go on, since some people discount the Bible as not being accurate, and it's probably best in this scenario to use a common, agreed-upon source of information. Likewise, I don't agree that paleontologists come up with accurate results all the time. If we ever get to a point where all age studies agree with each other, then I might start to believe that cooperative study.

Re: Protein Power and plans that don't recommend going into ketosis - I thought I asked about this before. They still recommend cutting back on carbs, enough that a person would probably go into ketosis anyway. Just because they don't -recommend- explicitly that you go into ketosis doesn't mean that the person won't go into ketosis on that plan.

> Yes, people who are starving are in ketosis, but the reverse does not hold true. The presence of ketones are not what tells the body it's starving...
You stated this already, and I already noted that I never claimed the reverse. Ketones are the result after the body thinks its starving. I understand this.

Regarding the "regular" diets, once I get a chance to study insulin, I will probably have more questions related to this.


tamarian:
<frown>
I realize that you are probably a forum administrator, but I think you are way out of line with your comments. Your comments make me believe that you are getting annoyed and you've just decided to make me look like a trouble-starter. While it's not wise to attack a forum admin, I have to say that I don't really appreciate your condescending attitude. Everyone else on this thread has been very polite and respectful.

> It is pointless to argue with someone who have already made up their mind, and refuses to share the scientific sources they claim led them to their beleifs.

First, I have not already made up my mind - I have made it clear that I am open-minded about this, and I have made clear my purposes for asking critical questions.

Second, I have also made clear that this is information I've gathered from different online sources, not necessarily scientific journals, and I've also listed these sources at the bottom of the articles (something that leads me to believe that you skipped over some of my messages).

Third, I put together that compilation and I believe I am now quite valid in respectfully and politely discussing the article(s) with the people on this forum. The "War Zone" has a hidden connotation that makes its threads sound frivolous, and personally I don't think this discussion should be labeled frivolous.

So please don't feed me patronizing phrases like "I respect your opinion" and discard me. Yes, I have developed an opinion based from other listed sources, and now I'm quite freely offering the chance to discredit the information contained in my opinion.

- Jonathan

Jonathan,

If you really beleive listing others who share your opinion constitutes enough scientific proof, then I rest my case.

I was annoyed, since you did make that claim that you have read scientific journals to substantiate your claims.

Now that you corrected that claim, and admit it is based only on other websites published opinions, then I'm no longer annoyed.

In our published list, we have a dedicates page for opinions against low-carb diets:

http://www.lowcarb.ca/newsmenu/opinionagainst.html

I have no problems with such claims, and I point people to them all the time.

I simply want to to make the distinction between science based on proven facts, vs. opinions. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what else to say.

Wa'il

Tamarian:

I am holding in my anger from your words, but here's my attempt-to-be-calm response:

> If you really beleive listing others who share your opinion constitutes enough scientific proof, then I rest my case. ... since you did make that claim that you have read scientific journals to substantiate your claims.

Now who is making up things? Go through every single message I have written and I have never said that I have read scientific journals to back up my claims. IN FACT, here's one of the very first sentences in the thread:

> but the more I look up on the Internet about ketogenic / low-carb dieting, the more sources I find that suggest that it is unhealthy...

I never, ever stated that I looked up scientific journals, and I maintained from the beginning that I simply found sources online that talked about this. I never made claims saying that "This is the way it is." The whole PURPOSE behind this thread is that I found these sources online that went into the article, but I had some doubts, and thus brought my questions here because I thought people here would be respectful and would understand and would be willing to help with my purpose.

> Now that you corrected that claim, and admit it is based only on other websites published opinions, then I'm no longer annoyed.

This is the point that is angering me, though. Again, I made no such claim, and never "corrected" anything. The only reason you were annoyed to begin with is because you jumped to conclusions. My thread and questions should not be labeled and punished for that mistake.

- Jonathan

First off, I apologize for the length of this post.That being said, I present the following for examination, from a search I done on ketosis vs. ketoacidosis. I could write a report based on my findings, had I the spare time; but I don't. My initial interpretation of the following articles is that ketosis and ketoacidosis are two entirely separate conditions, and ketosis does not lead to the latter.I merely present the facts here though and I leave it up to the individual to ascertain their own interpretations therof: (for those who may not know, the underlined materials are web links AND I apologize for any typoes, because KaeLyn woke up & I couldn't check for all the typoes )
Is Ketosis Safe? (click here) CYCLICAL KETOGENIC DIET,THE SCIENCE SURVIVING DIABETES & KETOSIS what is ketosis & how does it relate to low_carb diets? KETOSIS:MYSTERY OR MISCONCEPTION? INCREASED PROTEIN & KETONES DIETARY ABNORMALITIES: DKA DISCUSSION ABOUT KETOSIS VS. KETOACIDOSIS

aND THIS IS INTERESTING:

Well, you should calm down a bit. You can easily find what you said by reading it:



If for some reason I misunderstood you, and you have not read any scientific studies on the subject, I apologize.

But in that case, why such a motivation to build such collection of articles for the public to read and be "informed", when you admit there's no science behind it?

I mean, which is it? And that's not meant to patronize you, I really want to know.

Wa'il

No. Ketones are produced when a person is starving. They are also produced when a person is in an advanced stage of alcoholism. They are also produced when a person is in diabetic ketoacidosis. They are also produced in the process of lipolysis. All of these conditions produce ketones but for different reasons.
In starvation, ketones are produced because the body has insufficient calories...even if the majority of the calories a person who is starving come from carbs, they will still be producing ketones. Because the body does not have sufficient calories, it turns to it's fat stores.
In alcoholism, ketones are produced because of liver damage and metabolic disturbance.
In diabetic ketoacidosis, ketones are produced because there is insufficient insulin to move glucose from the bloodstream into the cells where it can be used for energy, so the body turns to burning fat instead. The combination of high blood glucose combined with ketones in the bloodstream produces ketoacidosis. This does not occur in a non-diabetic person (and even in most diabetic persons) following a ketogenic diet because the blood sugars are kept within normal range.
In ketogenic diets, ketones are produced because there are not enough carbs for the body to use as energy, so fat is used instead, even when sufficient calories are taken in to support basal metabolic fuctions (the person is NOT starving, nor does the body believe it is starving if the diet is being followed properly); it is simply using an alternate energy source because carbs are not available. Furthermore, dietary fat and protein are inefficiently coverted to energy, so again, the body turns to its fat stores for what it needs. As I said before, the presence of ketones are not what tell the body that it is starving; the lack of sufficient calories to support basal metabolic functions are what clue the body in to the fact that it is starving. As long as caloric intake is kept above basal metabolic needs, the body will not believe it is starving or behave that way.

It was generated by this quote from your own website:

"So Who Can Benefit?
Again, there are rare cases where a doctor can tell you that such a diet is beneficial to your condition."

If you don't consider epilepsy or diabetes to be rare conditions, why this statement?
In light of the evidence that a ketogenic, or at the very least, a low carb lifestyle (which you seem to equate with ketogenic) is helpful and indeed recommended for those who are diabetic, epileptic, insulin resistant, PCOS and hypothyroid (and those categories include millions of people), you may want to reconsider that statement.

I have a short amount of time to respond, so I'm just responding to tamarian right now:

> You can easily find what you said by reading it:
>> Finally, I -have- read some of the studies and am still reading them...

You misunderstood. People pointed me to studies/articles that were on this site. I read a few of the articles and I was expecting to continue reading more of them after my post. However, these studies were not used as references in my article. I had never seen them until people pointed them out.

Appropriately, I then thanked people for pointing me to the studies, so I could read them. Logic with order-of-events tells us that I would not have used the studies in my article if I found out about these particular studies after I wrote the article.

My motivation behind learning about all this is simply my own desire for some education on this particular topic. Once I have gotten to a point where I can sufficiently agree that the information I've written is correct, -then- I will begin to submit it to search engines and the like and make it public. Until then, I've kept it private and have been having this discussion to try and find out what -is- correct.

However, simply because I have no scientific journals backing up the statements does not mean they are not there. It simply means that I have not found them just yet - I am assuming that there is probably some mentions in such journals. However, at this point the research is so preliminary that surface questioning was warranted, in my opinion.

At some point I will have reached a conclusion that is logical and true from all perspectives, and there will be scientific evidence to back it up. Once I have reached that point, I will look for people that are willing to attack those articles, and will continue this cycle. It's all about refining the truth to make sure what you have is correct and pure.

My apologies to the other two, longer posts here - I will try to respond later.

- Jonathan

Lisa N:

> It was generated by this quote from your own website:
>> "So Who Can Benefit?
>> Again, there are rare cases ....

Ach! You're right - that was an incorrect implication upon my part - I will mark it down as something to change as soon as possible. My apologies and thanks!

- Jonathan

This thread is really interesting but it's all over the place. Maybe it would be easier if you would stick to a couple of points you want to see refuted, listed in point form. Then we could discuss those points and cite references on both side.

Just a suggestion...

I doubt that you are going to get anything more scientific than the reference to the Merck manual, in regards to ketoacidosis... I also have put some scientific evidence regarding the acid levels in the blood and how it affects both ketosis and ketoacidosis... You wonder why this thread was moved to the war zone... for practically every post submitted to this particuliar thread... you have a contrary opinion or idea or some evidence that you have found... Note that I did not say in every case, but by far, in most cases. We certainly don't like to see you bash-happy here... and it is not anything that is going to make you popular, but rather branded as a troublemaker.... FACT is... you are not going to find 100% evidence that the ketogenic diet is dangerous.. because there ARE going to be those instances where the ketogenic diet is not only beneficial to some, there will be MANY such instances...There are exceptions to the rules and Jonathan... this happens to be an area where there are many... so you will NEVER HAVE 100% correct and pure... no matter how hard you try~