Topic: The Ketogenic Diet
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 started this discussion 15 years ago #5,017
Ketosis is the process by which the body breaks down fats or lipids into ketones, which the body can use for energy. Normally, the body uses glucose for energy, but if it's running low on glucose, or if fat is the only energy source available, it will burn ketones instead.
The ketogenic diet was first "discovered" back in the 1920s. Doctors noticed that when children with epilepsy were put on the ketogenic diet, they suffered less seizures. I'm not sure what the mechanism of this result is, but it must have something to do with the brain not misfiring when burning ketones for energy rather than glucose. As more drugs to suppress epileptic seizures became available, many doctors lost interest in the diet, but the diet started to see renewed interest in the 1990s. It is a tough diet to get on. It starts with a day of fasting to force the body to burn off all its glucose and deprive the liver of glycogen. By fasting for a day, you essentially put your body in starvation mode. Your body tries to fight this by sending signals that you are extremely hungry and slowing down your metabolism to conserve energy. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense, since the body only wants to burn it's fat deposits as a last resort, wants you to seek food, and wants to conserve as much energy as possible. From a weight loss perspective, however, this blows, because to force our bodies to lose weight goes against our very nature as mammals. I digress. The person is usually put on appetite suppressants, for the first week or so. After fasting, the person eats a diet where 100% of their calories come from fat for the first couple days. What this does is it basically forces the liver and the bodies metabolism to switch gears. The body goes into a state of ketosis where it's using fat as its main source of energy rather than carbs and proteins. After the first few days, fat content of the diet can be decreased so that 60-80% of calories come from fat, 20-35% of calories come from protein, and less than 10% of calories come from carbs. It's interesting to note that once the body is in a state of ketosis, it has a tendency to stay in ketosis, just like when it's in its normal glucose-burning mode, it has a tendency to want to stay in that glucose-burning mode. Just like the body tries to send you signals to warn you that you're starving before going into ketosis as a last resort, it doesn't want to leave ketosis until it's certain that you're no longer in a starvation environment. This seems to be way the body will stay in this fat-burning ketosis mode as long as a majority of your daily calories are coming from fat. So even though you're not really starving, as you're getting adequate nutrition, your body stays in this starvation mode since most of the calories it's getting are calories from fat. As long as you don't let your liver store up enough energy to switch back to glucose, you'll stay in this ketosis gear. Since fat has a higher calorie density than carbs or protein, you still have to eat much less and be careful about calorie intake, which is why many will use appetite suppressants while on this diet. There's also the issue of feeling tired and lethargic from the body trying to slow down your metabolism and your body getting used to burning ketones instead of glucose. You can easily blow through this using exercise to force your metabolism to stay up, and stimulants to motivate you and help you power through it. Exercise is also important, because if you're not burning off the ketones in your blood, it can cause ketoacidosis, which is normally only a problem in diabetics, but you want to exercise anyway to burn fat and keep your metabolism up. I find that the best stimulant is 5-hour energy. Adderall is also helpful, and acts as an appetite suppressant. Taking multivitamins is also a good idea to ensure that you get adequate nutrition while on the diet and this will improve your overall health and energy level. Drinking lots of water on this diet is also very important, because the metabolizing of ketones uses more water than the metabolizing of glucose, so you need more water. You'll also need to drink more water if you're exercising like you should be. If you get cramps after working out, it's often because you're dehydrated. I find that drinking ample amounts of water can be more effective than stretching at preventing cramps, and drinking lots of water also keep your metabolism up. You'll also experiencing what they call "brain fog" from the first few days to first few weeks of the diet. This is because the brain is not used to burning ketones for energy and it takes time to adjust. The adderall and 5-hour energy helps with this as well. Once your brain has adjusted however, it actually prefers to use ketones for energy rather than glucose for energy. In fact, your brain will be 25% more efficient, and your heart and lungs will also be 25% more efficient. Eventually you'll find that you're less hungry, more energetic, more alert, more motivated, and sleeping better.
With all the weird rules and side-effects, some people argue that the diet doesn't seem healthy. I argue that it's a perfectly healthy diet, and the problem is the carb addiction we have in our society that causes most of the withdrawal-like symptoms. Once people adjust, they're much happier and healthier. Also, for millions of years before the dawn of agriculture, humans, as well as the non-human ancestors we descended from tens of millions of years ago, were naturally carnivores. There were some leaves and nuts in our diet, but for the most part, our diets consisted of fat and protein. The nuts we ate were high in fats, the leaves we ate were high in fiber and low in carbs, and berries and other fruits were a rare treat. This diet is actually closer the diet humans survived on for millions of years before agriculture gave us the starchy diet we have today. Most of the health problems we have today have been brought about as a result of agriculture and starchy foods. We didn't start getting cavities until we started eating starchy foods. Even non-diet related problems, such as pretty much every contagious disease we know today, came about as a result of humans living in much closer proximity because of agriculture. Despite the higher fat content of the diet, most of it is healthy fat that gets burned off before it can cause problems with obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc. The low-fat dieting craze that swept the nation has actually led to higher level of obesity and worse health because people replaced the fat in their diets with more carbs, and eliminated all the good unsaturated fats from their diets which led to poorer overall health. I digress once again.
The most interesting thing about this diet is what it can do for body builders. Normally body builders use what they call the "bulk and cut" method of building muscle. This is when they go through a period of bulking up to build muscle, then a cutting period of losing fat, then back to both and so forth. Why can't they just build muscle and lose fat at the same time, you might ask? Well, the body needs protein to build muscle. In a "normal" state of metabolism, the body only burns fat as a last resort, and will start to convert protein into glucose for energy before it starts burning fat. It will even burn its own muscle for energy, which is why you can lose a lot of muscle mass from dieting. If someone is trying to lose fat and build muscle at the same time, they either burn off all their protein before it can be converted to muscle, or they eat lots of protein to compensate, but then they can't burn any fat because they can't burn fat without burning all their protein first. This is why they use "bulk and cut." On the ketogenic diet, however, your body is in a metabolic gear that doesn't work this way. When your body is constantly in ketosis, it's set to use ketones as its main source of energy. So when you're working out to burn fat, your body just continues to burn fat rather than burning through all your protein first. This means that your body can use the protein you give it to build muscle. As a result, on the ketogenic diet, you can build muscle and lose fat weight at the same time so that you've always got a lean and cut look, rather than a "built-fat" look. This eliminates the "bulk and cut" method completely. There are also variations of the ketogenic diet out there that I suggest looking into. Find the one that's right for you.
The ketogenic diet was first "discovered" back in the 1920s. Doctors noticed that when children with epilepsy were put on the ketogenic diet, they suffered less seizures. I'm not sure what the mechanism of this result is, but it must have something to do with the brain not misfiring when burning ketones for energy rather than glucose. As more drugs to suppress epileptic seizures became available, many doctors lost interest in the diet, but the diet started to see renewed interest in the 1990s. It is a tough diet to get on. It starts with a day of fasting to force the body to burn off all its glucose and deprive the liver of glycogen. By fasting for a day, you essentially put your body in starvation mode. Your body tries to fight this by sending signals that you are extremely hungry and slowing down your metabolism to conserve energy. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense, since the body only wants to burn it's fat deposits as a last resort, wants you to seek food, and wants to conserve as much energy as possible. From a weight loss perspective, however, this blows, because to force our bodies to lose weight goes against our very nature as mammals. I digress. The person is usually put on appetite suppressants, for the first week or so. After fasting, the person eats a diet where 100% of their calories come from fat for the first couple days. What this does is it basically forces the liver and the bodies metabolism to switch gears. The body goes into a state of ketosis where it's using fat as its main source of energy rather than carbs and proteins. After the first few days, fat content of the diet can be decreased so that 60-80% of calories come from fat, 20-35% of calories come from protein, and less than 10% of calories come from carbs. It's interesting to note that once the body is in a state of ketosis, it has a tendency to stay in ketosis, just like when it's in its normal glucose-burning mode, it has a tendency to want to stay in that glucose-burning mode. Just like the body tries to send you signals to warn you that you're starving before going into ketosis as a last resort, it doesn't want to leave ketosis until it's certain that you're no longer in a starvation environment. This seems to be way the body will stay in this fat-burning ketosis mode as long as a majority of your daily calories are coming from fat. So even though you're not really starving, as you're getting adequate nutrition, your body stays in this starvation mode since most of the calories it's getting are calories from fat. As long as you don't let your liver store up enough energy to switch back to glucose, you'll stay in this ketosis gear. Since fat has a higher calorie density than carbs or protein, you still have to eat much less and be careful about calorie intake, which is why many will use appetite suppressants while on this diet. There's also the issue of feeling tired and lethargic from the body trying to slow down your metabolism and your body getting used to burning ketones instead of glucose. You can easily blow through this using exercise to force your metabolism to stay up, and stimulants to motivate you and help you power through it. Exercise is also important, because if you're not burning off the ketones in your blood, it can cause ketoacidosis, which is normally only a problem in diabetics, but you want to exercise anyway to burn fat and keep your metabolism up. I find that the best stimulant is 5-hour energy. Adderall is also helpful, and acts as an appetite suppressant. Taking multivitamins is also a good idea to ensure that you get adequate nutrition while on the diet and this will improve your overall health and energy level. Drinking lots of water on this diet is also very important, because the metabolizing of ketones uses more water than the metabolizing of glucose, so you need more water. You'll also need to drink more water if you're exercising like you should be. If you get cramps after working out, it's often because you're dehydrated. I find that drinking ample amounts of water can be more effective than stretching at preventing cramps, and drinking lots of water also keep your metabolism up. You'll also experiencing what they call "brain fog" from the first few days to first few weeks of the diet. This is because the brain is not used to burning ketones for energy and it takes time to adjust. The adderall and 5-hour energy helps with this as well. Once your brain has adjusted however, it actually prefers to use ketones for energy rather than glucose for energy. In fact, your brain will be 25% more efficient, and your heart and lungs will also be 25% more efficient. Eventually you'll find that you're less hungry, more energetic, more alert, more motivated, and sleeping better.
With all the weird rules and side-effects, some people argue that the diet doesn't seem healthy. I argue that it's a perfectly healthy diet, and the problem is the carb addiction we have in our society that causes most of the withdrawal-like symptoms. Once people adjust, they're much happier and healthier. Also, for millions of years before the dawn of agriculture, humans, as well as the non-human ancestors we descended from tens of millions of years ago, were naturally carnivores. There were some leaves and nuts in our diet, but for the most part, our diets consisted of fat and protein. The nuts we ate were high in fats, the leaves we ate were high in fiber and low in carbs, and berries and other fruits were a rare treat. This diet is actually closer the diet humans survived on for millions of years before agriculture gave us the starchy diet we have today. Most of the health problems we have today have been brought about as a result of agriculture and starchy foods. We didn't start getting cavities until we started eating starchy foods. Even non-diet related problems, such as pretty much every contagious disease we know today, came about as a result of humans living in much closer proximity because of agriculture. Despite the higher fat content of the diet, most of it is healthy fat that gets burned off before it can cause problems with obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc. The low-fat dieting craze that swept the nation has actually led to higher level of obesity and worse health because people replaced the fat in their diets with more carbs, and eliminated all the good unsaturated fats from their diets which led to poorer overall health. I digress once again.
The most interesting thing about this diet is what it can do for body builders. Normally body builders use what they call the "bulk and cut" method of building muscle. This is when they go through a period of bulking up to build muscle, then a cutting period of losing fat, then back to both and so forth. Why can't they just build muscle and lose fat at the same time, you might ask? Well, the body needs protein to build muscle. In a "normal" state of metabolism, the body only burns fat as a last resort, and will start to convert protein into glucose for energy before it starts burning fat. It will even burn its own muscle for energy, which is why you can lose a lot of muscle mass from dieting. If someone is trying to lose fat and build muscle at the same time, they either burn off all their protein before it can be converted to muscle, or they eat lots of protein to compensate, but then they can't burn any fat because they can't burn fat without burning all their protein first. This is why they use "bulk and cut." On the ketogenic diet, however, your body is in a metabolic gear that doesn't work this way. When your body is constantly in ketosis, it's set to use ketones as its main source of energy. So when you're working out to burn fat, your body just continues to burn fat rather than burning through all your protein first. This means that your body can use the protein you give it to build muscle. As a result, on the ketogenic diet, you can build muscle and lose fat weight at the same time so that you've always got a lean and cut look, rather than a "built-fat" look. This eliminates the "bulk and cut" method completely. There are also variations of the ketogenic diet out there that I suggest looking into. Find the one that's right for you.
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #88,633
Calorie control is best. I eat a load of fat, but exercise and restrict calories.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,637
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,640
I forgot to mention one thing about how this diet affects insulin levels. Your insulin levels will pretty much drop to zero, since you're no longer using glucose as your main source of energy. Insulin promotes storage of fat, and also inhibits the burning of fat. With insulin out of the way, your body has nothing to inhibit fat metabolism and also has nothing telling it to store fat. You burn more fat because of this also. Also, this diet has also been known to naturally increase testosterone and HGH levels in the body. The benefits just keep getting better and better.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,687
So give me a sample day of meals on this diet
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,690
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> 2500
Way too much.
> 2500
Way too much.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,695
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
It's apparently an alternative diet, not a weight-loss diet.
It's apparently an alternative diet, not a weight-loss diet.
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,701
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)You're getting your information from the back of food labels. That's how much you consume if you want to keep at the same weight, not lose it.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,704
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Did you even read the OP?
Did you even read the OP?
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,714
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I've been losing weight since november by calorie control. 15st>12.5st
I've been losing weight since november by calorie control. 15st>12.5st
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,747
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
No, you're wrong, and way off. I agree that most diets don't work, but it's not necessarily the diet's fault. It's because people aren't willing to make the necessary lifestyle changes needed to keep the weight off. They'll starve themselves in the short run to lose weight and then go back to the habits that made them put on the weight in the first place. This diet works for several reasons. It is a healthy lifestyle, not just a diet. That is why I specifically pointed out the long term benefits such as decreased appetite, increased energy levels, decreased insulin, increased testosterone, increased human growth hormone, 25% increase in brain function, 25% increase in heart function, 25% increase in lung function, and I could go on. Like I said, humans survived off a diet like this for millions of years.
The 2000-2500 calorie a day guideline, is just as much bullshit as the old food pyramid that but grains and starches on the very bottom. You're only burning that many calories if you're exercising 2 hours a day as they often recommend in the same sentence that they tell you eat 2000 calories and that most of those calories should come from carbs. These are the same people who told us that a good way to lose weight is too eliminate fat from our diet, and the low-fat trend in dieting has led to more cases of obesity and diabetes. I can eat about 1200-1600 calories per day, work out, and I'll only maintain my current weight. 2500 calories might be necessary if you're a "bulk and cut" bodybuilder who's currently in the bulk stage, but as I mentioned above, this diet eliminates the need for the bulk and cut method of bodybuilding. You're right that most people who simply try to starve themselves don't lose weight because a) that's not a lifestyle change, b) starvation causes your body to lower your metabolism and hang on to everything you give it and c) these people always rebound and eat a ton of food. You're falsely making this sound like this is just another starvation diet. It's not. It works by putting the body into the "starvation mode," but you're still getting adequate calories and nutrition. If anything, you get better nutrition than most people if you follow the diet like you're supposed to. You cannot burn body fat and lose weight without burning more calories than you take it. Most diets fail because when you do this you make your body feel like it's constantly edging on starvation. This diet works the way it does, and as well as it does, because if you're always in the "starvation" mode, you don't feel the hungry pangs and relapses that most diets cause. I put starvation in quotes because I must emphasize that you are not starving. It's just a change in metabolism.
No, you're wrong, and way off. I agree that most diets don't work, but it's not necessarily the diet's fault. It's because people aren't willing to make the necessary lifestyle changes needed to keep the weight off. They'll starve themselves in the short run to lose weight and then go back to the habits that made them put on the weight in the first place. This diet works for several reasons. It is a healthy lifestyle, not just a diet. That is why I specifically pointed out the long term benefits such as decreased appetite, increased energy levels, decreased insulin, increased testosterone, increased human growth hormone, 25% increase in brain function, 25% increase in heart function, 25% increase in lung function, and I could go on. Like I said, humans survived off a diet like this for millions of years.
The 2000-2500 calorie a day guideline, is just as much bullshit as the old food pyramid that but grains and starches on the very bottom. You're only burning that many calories if you're exercising 2 hours a day as they often recommend in the same sentence that they tell you eat 2000 calories and that most of those calories should come from carbs. These are the same people who told us that a good way to lose weight is too eliminate fat from our diet, and the low-fat trend in dieting has led to more cases of obesity and diabetes. I can eat about 1200-1600 calories per day, work out, and I'll only maintain my current weight. 2500 calories might be necessary if you're a "bulk and cut" bodybuilder who's currently in the bulk stage, but as I mentioned above, this diet eliminates the need for the bulk and cut method of bodybuilding. You're right that most people who simply try to starve themselves don't lose weight because a) that's not a lifestyle change, b) starvation causes your body to lower your metabolism and hang on to everything you give it and c) these people always rebound and eat a ton of food. You're falsely making this sound like this is just another starvation diet. It's not. It works by putting the body into the "starvation mode," but you're still getting adequate calories and nutrition. If anything, you get better nutrition than most people if you follow the diet like you're supposed to. You cannot burn body fat and lose weight without burning more calories than you take it. Most diets fail because when you do this you make your body feel like it's constantly edging on starvation. This diet works the way it does, and as well as it does, because if you're always in the "starvation" mode, you don't feel the hungry pangs and relapses that most diets cause. I put starvation in quotes because I must emphasize that you are not starving. It's just a change in metabolism.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,749
@88,695 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
It's an alternative diet, a weight loss diet, a bodybuilding diet, an "alternative" lifestyle, and a diet that helps epileptics. I put alternative in quotes because I believe that this is how people should eat, and it's how people at for millions of years. Almost everyone would be healthier and better off on this diet. It's the agriculture diet that consists of mostly grains and starches, and our processed food culture, that is the alternative diet.
It's an alternative diet, a weight loss diet, a bodybuilding diet, an "alternative" lifestyle, and a diet that helps epileptics. I put alternative in quotes because I believe that this is how people should eat, and it's how people at for millions of years. Almost everyone would be healthier and better off on this diet. It's the agriculture diet that consists of mostly grains and starches, and our processed food culture, that is the alternative diet.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,764
@88,687 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
For breakfast I might eat bacon and eggs. Bacon, despite having some saturated fat, is actually mostly good, unsaturated fat, and is more fat than protein, and no carbs, making it ideal for the diet. Eggs are also a good source of protein and dietary fat. I'll drink a glass of water with it (no milk or orange juice) and take a multivitamin, omega-3 supplement, and my adderall. I'll then sometimes drink a 5-hour energy and go to the gym and work out for an hour or two. For lunch I might have 5 Triscuits, covered in olive oil, then topped with guacamole and smoked salmon. Avacado is incredibly healthy for you and full of unsaturated fats, olive oil is pure unsaturated fat, salmon is a great source of fats, protein, and omega-3, and the carbs in the Triscuits are OK. For snack I might have some mixed nuts. Dinner might consist of a leafy green salad, high in fiber, usually covered in walnuts and an Italian dressing. It is important to not use low-fat Italian dressing, since you need the fat in this diet, and if you compare regular Italian to low-fat Italian, the regular Italian is pure unsaturated fat, while the low-fat or no fat Italian is loaded with carbs. Other acceptable foods might include things like sardines, salami and other salty less-processed meats, cream cheese, and pretty much anything else that is low carb and high in fat. There are lots of recipes out there.
For breakfast I might eat bacon and eggs. Bacon, despite having some saturated fat, is actually mostly good, unsaturated fat, and is more fat than protein, and no carbs, making it ideal for the diet. Eggs are also a good source of protein and dietary fat. I'll drink a glass of water with it (no milk or orange juice) and take a multivitamin, omega-3 supplement, and my adderall. I'll then sometimes drink a 5-hour energy and go to the gym and work out for an hour or two. For lunch I might have 5 Triscuits, covered in olive oil, then topped with guacamole and smoked salmon. Avacado is incredibly healthy for you and full of unsaturated fats, olive oil is pure unsaturated fat, salmon is a great source of fats, protein, and omega-3, and the carbs in the Triscuits are OK. For snack I might have some mixed nuts. Dinner might consist of a leafy green salad, high in fiber, usually covered in walnuts and an Italian dressing. It is important to not use low-fat Italian dressing, since you need the fat in this diet, and if you compare regular Italian to low-fat Italian, the regular Italian is pure unsaturated fat, while the low-fat or no fat Italian is loaded with carbs. Other acceptable foods might include things like sardines, salami and other salty less-processed meats, cream cheese, and pretty much anything else that is low carb and high in fat. There are lots of recipes out there.
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,770
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,775
@previous (Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA)
It only has about as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, but coffee is often loaded with carbs, unless you drink your coffee black. 5 hour energy is only 4 calories and loaded with B-vitamins and other supplements that keep your energy and metabolism up.
It only has about as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, but coffee is often loaded with carbs, unless you drink your coffee black. 5 hour energy is only 4 calories and loaded with B-vitamins and other supplements that keep your energy and metabolism up.
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,777
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,800
@previous (Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA)
No, orange juice is nothing but pure carbs, and not allowed on this diet. One glass of orange juice would flood the body with glucose and insulin and kick you out of ketosis. Also, skim milk is also loaded with carbs, and if you were going to drink any sort of milk of this diet, it would be whole milk. You need the fat in this diet.
No, orange juice is nothing but pure carbs, and not allowed on this diet. One glass of orange juice would flood the body with glucose and insulin and kick you out of ketosis. Also, skim milk is also loaded with carbs, and if you were going to drink any sort of milk of this diet, it would be whole milk. You need the fat in this diet.
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,802
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,812
OP, what you said is good but:
> Adderall is also helpful, and acts as an appetite suppressant.
This works directly against what you want (and to a lesser extent so does caffeine). Ephedrine increases blood glucose levels and prompts the liver to release glycogen.
> Adderall is also helpful, and acts as an appetite suppressant.
This works directly against what you want (and to a lesser extent so does caffeine). Ephedrine increases blood glucose levels and prompts the liver to release glycogen.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,818
@OP
> for millions of years before the dawn of agriculture, humans, as well as the non-human ancestors we descended from tens of millions of years ago, were naturally carnivores.
oh, ok.
> for millions of years before the dawn of agriculture, humans, as well as the non-human ancestors we descended from tens of millions of years ago, were naturally carnivores.
oh, ok.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,821
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,829
@previous (E)
Naturally carnivores? No. Sorry. Primate diets can be pretty varied, but occasional hunting of small animals and eating insects (as might be seen in today's chimps, bonobos or gorillas) is quite a giant leap from being a "natural carnivore". In fact, you don't see any great apes that could really be described as carnivores, nor is there any evidence that there was any point at which they were. Even early humans who hunted regularly appear to have done it in seasons, and they probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it enough to do anything more than supplement their diets during good seasons.
I suppose it is debatable, but it's a bit like debating that aliens built the pyramids.
Naturally carnivores? No. Sorry. Primate diets can be pretty varied, but occasional hunting of small animals and eating insects (as might be seen in today's chimps, bonobos or gorillas) is quite a giant leap from being a "natural carnivore". In fact, you don't see any great apes that could really be described as carnivores, nor is there any evidence that there was any point at which they were. Even early humans who hunted regularly appear to have done it in seasons, and they probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it enough to do anything more than supplement their diets during good seasons.
I suppose it is debatable, but it's a bit like debating that aliens built the pyramids.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,861
@previous (F)
Well first of all, most people consider humans and great apes to be "omnivores," but omnivore is not a very scientific term. Most animals eat a little of everything, but all animals are either geared more towards meat or more towards plants, and they have a digestive system to match. As such, almost all animals can either be categorized as carnivores or herbivores. Humans, like other great apes, have always eaten some plant life, but archaeological evidence as well as analogies of how our digestive systems work indicate that humans are carnivores. You're correct that no other great ape is considered carnivore, but that's because the features humans have that make us carnivores are derived features. It's one of the things that sets us apart from the great apes. If you research what's called the "expensive tissue theory" it goes into great detail about why humans and our bipedal non-human ancestors diverged from the rest of the great apes and become more carnivorous. I'd go into more detail, but it would be tl;dr even for me. I studied these things as an anthropologist in college.
That's not to say that this means that vegetarian or agricultural diets are wrong and unnatural. It's perfectly natural for humans to use culture to do things that go against our immediate biological nature, but it's important to at least understand what the incumbent natural diet is supposed to be.
Well first of all, most people consider humans and great apes to be "omnivores," but omnivore is not a very scientific term. Most animals eat a little of everything, but all animals are either geared more towards meat or more towards plants, and they have a digestive system to match. As such, almost all animals can either be categorized as carnivores or herbivores. Humans, like other great apes, have always eaten some plant life, but archaeological evidence as well as analogies of how our digestive systems work indicate that humans are carnivores. You're correct that no other great ape is considered carnivore, but that's because the features humans have that make us carnivores are derived features. It's one of the things that sets us apart from the great apes. If you research what's called the "expensive tissue theory" it goes into great detail about why humans and our bipedal non-human ancestors diverged from the rest of the great apes and become more carnivorous. I'd go into more detail, but it would be tl;dr even for me. I studied these things as an anthropologist in college.
That's not to say that this means that vegetarian or agricultural diets are wrong and unnatural. It's perfectly natural for humans to use culture to do things that go against our immediate biological nature, but it's important to at least understand what the incumbent natural diet is supposed to be.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,863
@88,812 (E)
Not if the body doesn't have any glucose or glycogen to use. If it only has ketones, that's what it uses.
Not if the body doesn't have any glucose or glycogen to use. If it only has ketones, that's what it uses.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 51 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,897
@88,861 (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> but archaeological evidence as well as analogies of how our digestive systems work indicate that humans are carnivores.
Which is why the development of agriculture was such an important development, right?
You seem to be using this term fairly loosely. I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that humans were ever primarily or exclusively carnivores. Hunting is energy intensive and often dangerous. Early humans, lacking think hides, claws, large teeth, or most of the traits that you see in carnivores, clearly did not evolve as hunters. Later humans almost certainly hunted, but I haven't seen much evidence that would point to the species being primarily or exclusively carnivorous at any point.
The part that is annoying is that the original post throws out such a flimsy claim, and then uses it as a springboard to launch into some "starchy food is the root of all evil and we need to eat pure fat and drink 5-hour energy like our ancestors" type tirade. It really keeps me from taking any of it seriously.
> but archaeological evidence as well as analogies of how our digestive systems work indicate that humans are carnivores.
Which is why the development of agriculture was such an important development, right?
You seem to be using this term fairly loosely. I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that humans were ever primarily or exclusively carnivores. Hunting is energy intensive and often dangerous. Early humans, lacking think hides, claws, large teeth, or most of the traits that you see in carnivores, clearly did not evolve as hunters. Later humans almost certainly hunted, but I haven't seen much evidence that would point to the species being primarily or exclusively carnivorous at any point.
The part that is annoying is that the original post throws out such a flimsy claim, and then uses it as a springboard to launch into some "starchy food is the root of all evil and we need to eat pure fat and drink 5-hour energy like our ancestors" type tirade. It really keeps me from taking any of it seriously.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,909
@previous (F)
No animal is exclusively carnivore. As I pointed out before, omnivore is term that is rarely used in the scientific community. Almost everything falls into carnivore or herbivore, depending on what they rely mostly on and how their digestive systems are set up. Humans have a digestive system that cannot handle a lot of fibrous green foods. Until agriculture, we relied mainly on meat. Also, the image you see to the left is a completely false representation of how humans evolved. We did not slowly start to walk upright and lose other ape-like qualities at the same time. We, as in our non-human ancestors, started walking upright first, and then other changes started happening. Again, it's tl;dr to explain everything I know about human evolution and the expensive tissue theory here. It's my area of expertise though.
Also, no where do I use this as a springboard to say that starchy foods are the root of all evil and that we all need to go back to the diet of our ancestors. As I said in my larger post just above yours "That's not to say that this means that vegetarian or agricultural diets are wrong and unnatural. It's perfectly natural for humans to use culture to do things that go against our immediate biological nature, but it's important to at least understand what the incumbent natural diet is supposed to be." I'm simply using the fact that we lived this way for so long as a way to defend this diet against people who claim that it is completely unhealthy. And while there are ways around the drawbacks of an agricultural diet, the drawbacks are there. These are not flimsy claims. This is my college education at work.
No animal is exclusively carnivore. As I pointed out before, omnivore is term that is rarely used in the scientific community. Almost everything falls into carnivore or herbivore, depending on what they rely mostly on and how their digestive systems are set up. Humans have a digestive system that cannot handle a lot of fibrous green foods. Until agriculture, we relied mainly on meat. Also, the image you see to the left is a completely false representation of how humans evolved. We did not slowly start to walk upright and lose other ape-like qualities at the same time. We, as in our non-human ancestors, started walking upright first, and then other changes started happening. Again, it's tl;dr to explain everything I know about human evolution and the expensive tissue theory here. It's my area of expertise though.
Also, no where do I use this as a springboard to say that starchy foods are the root of all evil and that we all need to go back to the diet of our ancestors. As I said in my larger post just above yours "That's not to say that this means that vegetarian or agricultural diets are wrong and unnatural. It's perfectly natural for humans to use culture to do things that go against our immediate biological nature, but it's important to at least understand what the incumbent natural diet is supposed to be." I'm simply using the fact that we lived this way for so long as a way to defend this diet against people who claim that it is completely unhealthy. And while there are ways around the drawbacks of an agricultural diet, the drawbacks are there. These are not flimsy claims. This is my college education at work.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,910
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,911
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,919
@previous (E)
Yes, I understand that, which is why if you read my first post, the diet starts off as a day of fasting, and the first few days of diet are almost 100% fat. This deprives the body off all the nutrients that can be used as glucose, and drains the liver of it's glycogen, forcing the body into ketosis. Once in ketosis, you can add some carbs and proteins to the diet, but you leave the diet as mostly fat, and the body stays in ketosis.
Yes, I understand that, which is why if you read my first post, the diet starts off as a day of fasting, and the first few days of diet are almost 100% fat. This deprives the body off all the nutrients that can be used as glucose, and drains the liver of it's glycogen, forcing the body into ketosis. Once in ketosis, you can add some carbs and proteins to the diet, but you leave the diet as mostly fat, and the body stays in ketosis.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,926
@88,909 (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Until agriculture, we relied mainly on meat ... I'm simply using the fact that we lived this way for so long
I'm sorry, I still can't see any evidence of that. On what basis are you making these claims?
> Until agriculture, we relied mainly on meat ... I'm simply using the fact that we lived this way for so long
I'm sorry, I still can't see any evidence of that. On what basis are you making these claims?
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,935
@previous (F)
It's what I was taught in college. Physical and biological anthropologists as well as archaeologists will tell you this is true for many reasons. I already said that I'm not going to give a tl;dr college lecture. The information is out there if you want to find it, which is why I said you can research the "expensive tissue theory" as well as pick up any book on the history of agriculture. I would recommend "Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology" by Lewis/Jurmain/Kilgore. If you don't believe me, fine, because if the diet's not for you I'm not going to argue with you and try to convince you otherwise. I'm just putting the information out their for others to see, and there's plenty of other information out there.
It's what I was taught in college. Physical and biological anthropologists as well as archaeologists will tell you this is true for many reasons. I already said that I'm not going to give a tl;dr college lecture. The information is out there if you want to find it, which is why I said you can research the "expensive tissue theory" as well as pick up any book on the history of agriculture. I would recommend "Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology" by Lewis/Jurmain/Kilgore. If you don't believe me, fine, because if the diet's not for you I'm not going to argue with you and try to convince you otherwise. I'm just putting the information out their for others to see, and there's plenty of other information out there.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,944
@previous (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I still can't find a compelling argument to support your position. Diet analysis of early humans from middens and ancient fecal analysis doesn't seem to widely support your claim; nor does trace element analysis of ancient bone; nor does evidence from our nearest evolutionary cousins; nor does much of anything.
Some societies ate more meat than others. Early humans along the coasts of south-east Asia and Pacific islanders ate a lot of shellfish (which is very low in fat, BTW) when they could, but taro, yam, and gourd were the staple foods of choice in the area. Early people in the Americas ate game animals, but foods like corn, bean, and squash formed the bulk of their diets according to the evidence. There is nothing there to indicate that meat or fat was a primary or necessary part of the human diet on a species level.
> I'm just putting the information out their for others to see
I just object to putting wild claims out there about how eating high-fat diets is somehow natural or good when there is next to no evidence to support this.
I still can't find a compelling argument to support your position. Diet analysis of early humans from middens and ancient fecal analysis doesn't seem to widely support your claim; nor does trace element analysis of ancient bone; nor does evidence from our nearest evolutionary cousins; nor does much of anything.
Some societies ate more meat than others. Early humans along the coasts of south-east Asia and Pacific islanders ate a lot of shellfish (which is very low in fat, BTW) when they could, but taro, yam, and gourd were the staple foods of choice in the area. Early people in the Americas ate game animals, but foods like corn, bean, and squash formed the bulk of their diets according to the evidence. There is nothing there to indicate that meat or fat was a primary or necessary part of the human diet on a species level.
> I'm just putting the information out their for others to see
I just object to putting wild claims out there about how eating high-fat diets is somehow natural or good when there is next to no evidence to support this.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,947
@previous (F)
You're still talking about agricultural societies. And I already explained that one would not expect to find similar features in other great apes because the unique digestive track of humans is a derived feature, not a primitive feature. All the evidence I'm talking about is in the book I mentioned. I stand by my previous post.
You're still talking about agricultural societies. And I already explained that one would not expect to find similar features in other great apes because the unique digestive track of humans is a derived feature, not a primitive feature. All the evidence I'm talking about is in the book I mentioned. I stand by my previous post.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,950
@88,919 (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Your glycogen stores never go to zero. And the pathway for gluconeogenesis can be done even in ketoacidosis (which is the main reason the pathway exists).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1648846/
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ketosis+ephedrine&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C39&as_sdtp=on
Your glycogen stores never go to zero. And the pathway for gluconeogenesis can be done even in ketoacidosis (which is the main reason the pathway exists).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1648846/
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ketosis+ephedrine&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C39&as_sdtp=on
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 48 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,979
@88,947 (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> You're still talking about agricultural societies.
No, the data is from hunter-gatherer societies.
Expensive tissue hypothesis cites the introduction of meat into our diet as a possible factor in the growth of larger brains, but I don't think it makes the claim that early humans started relying primarily on meat. A claim like that wouldn't match up available dental evidence from the time period and wouldn't likely be possible year-round for early humans in some areas.
> All the evidence I'm talking about is in the book I mentioned.
Is it all just in that one book?
> You're still talking about agricultural societies.
No, the data is from hunter-gatherer societies.
Expensive tissue hypothesis cites the introduction of meat into our diet as a possible factor in the growth of larger brains, but I don't think it makes the claim that early humans started relying primarily on meat. A claim like that wouldn't match up available dental evidence from the time period and wouldn't likely be possible year-round for early humans in some areas.
> All the evidence I'm talking about is in the book I mentioned.
Is it all just in that one book?
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,994
@previous (F)
> No, the data is from hunter-gatherer societies.
They're still societies that used culture and tools to live those lifestyles. I'm talking about the societies that lived in Africa for millions of years. Also, I'll reiterate that I'm not saying that those lifestyles are unnatural and automatically worse. I'm just saying that my diet is not unnatural. I give plenty of reasons for why my diet works, at least for me, outside of anthropological reasons.
> Expensive tissue hypothesis cites the introduction of meat into our diet as a possible factor in the growth of larger brains
It also claims that our shift to bipedalism may have also shortened our digestive tract, which caused other changes in our digestive tract that made us rely more on meat. Because digestive tissue consumes a lot of energy, hence the term "expensive tissue", this freed up our metabolism enough to allow for the growth of larger brains. If we had brains like we have now, and still had a digestive tract the same size and type as our great ape ancestors and cousins, we would have an almost unsustainable metabolism.
> A claim like that wouldn't match up available dental evidence from the time period and wouldn't likely be possible year-round for early humans in some areas.
From what I've been taught, it does match dental evidence. Also, we're only talking about humans who lived in Africa. Humans only started expanding out of Africa on a large scale about 60,000 years ago. Not long enough for major biological changes to occur. The stuff I'm talking about goes back millions of years.
> Is it all just in that one book?
That book doesn't explain everything, and there's plenty of stuff in that book that's in other books, but that book's a great book to start with.
> No, the data is from hunter-gatherer societies.
They're still societies that used culture and tools to live those lifestyles. I'm talking about the societies that lived in Africa for millions of years. Also, I'll reiterate that I'm not saying that those lifestyles are unnatural and automatically worse. I'm just saying that my diet is not unnatural. I give plenty of reasons for why my diet works, at least for me, outside of anthropological reasons.
> Expensive tissue hypothesis cites the introduction of meat into our diet as a possible factor in the growth of larger brains
It also claims that our shift to bipedalism may have also shortened our digestive tract, which caused other changes in our digestive tract that made us rely more on meat. Because digestive tissue consumes a lot of energy, hence the term "expensive tissue", this freed up our metabolism enough to allow for the growth of larger brains. If we had brains like we have now, and still had a digestive tract the same size and type as our great ape ancestors and cousins, we would have an almost unsustainable metabolism.
> A claim like that wouldn't match up available dental evidence from the time period and wouldn't likely be possible year-round for early humans in some areas.
From what I've been taught, it does match dental evidence. Also, we're only talking about humans who lived in Africa. Humans only started expanding out of Africa on a large scale about 60,000 years ago. Not long enough for major biological changes to occur. The stuff I'm talking about goes back millions of years.
> Is it all just in that one book?
That book doesn't explain everything, and there's plenty of stuff in that book that's in other books, but that book's a great book to start with.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,108
@previous (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> If we had brains like we have now, and still had a digestive tract the same size and type as our great ape ancestors and cousins, we would have an almost unsustainable metabolism.
Yes, the introduction of meat into the diet would help explain that, and supplementing our diets with more game would make sense in this context. I have heard no one claim that requires a sudden shift to an all meat diet, high-fat diet as the original post seems to claim. Claiming that our ancestors were "naturally carnivores" is just playing fast and loose with the facts and terminology in my opinion.
> If we had brains like we have now, and still had a digestive tract the same size and type as our great ape ancestors and cousins, we would have an almost unsustainable metabolism.
Yes, the introduction of meat into the diet would help explain that, and supplementing our diets with more game would make sense in this context. I have heard no one claim that requires a sudden shift to an all meat diet, high-fat diet as the original post seems to claim. Claiming that our ancestors were "naturally carnivores" is just playing fast and loose with the facts and terminology in my opinion.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,172
@previous (F)
It wasn't a sudden shift. As with all things in evolution, it happened slowly over time. And I never said "all meat." I made it very clear that carnivore diet /= all meat diet.
It wasn't a sudden shift. As with all things in evolution, it happened slowly over time. And I never said "all meat." I made it very clear that carnivore diet /= all meat diet.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,198
@88,764 (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
You should look into saturated fat. I've been reading up on it and I can't find much to support the widely-held belief that it's bad for you. Trans fats from hydrogenated vegetable oils are definitely bad, and polyunsaturated fats are definitely good, but saturated fat doesn't seem to have a significant influence on your health.
You should look into saturated fat. I've been reading up on it and I can't find much to support the widely-held belief that it's bad for you. Trans fats from hydrogenated vegetable oils are definitely bad, and polyunsaturated fats are definitely good, but saturated fat doesn't seem to have a significant influence on your health.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,203
@previous (G)
I tend to agree. I try to lean more towards unsaturated fats because they are definitely good for you, but I don't avoid saturated fats like the plague. The biggest problem with saturated fats seems to be that it clogs your arteries if it's not burned off, but if you burn those calories you should be OK.
I tend to agree. I try to lean more towards unsaturated fats because they are definitely good for you, but I don't avoid saturated fats like the plague. The biggest problem with saturated fats seems to be that it clogs your arteries if it's not burned off, but if you burn those calories you should be OK.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,227
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> The biggest problem with saturated fats seems to be that it clogs your arteries if it's not burned off...
I'm still looking into it, but afaict total cholesterol levels (if that's what you're talking about) aren't as important as the ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol, and that ratio's unaffected by saturated fat.
> The biggest problem with saturated fats seems to be that it clogs your arteries if it's not burned off...
I'm still looking into it, but afaict total cholesterol levels (if that's what you're talking about) aren't as important as the ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol, and that ratio's unaffected by saturated fat.