RayK

Vitamins, what is needed and why

88 posts in this topic

I hope this topic can give insight into vitamin usage for forum members.

Todays proliferation of vitamins has caused a misunderstanding of how much we need and why. Although I think we should be asking, what kind and how much we need from vitamins? I do not think they are needed in the large amounts that are being sold to consumers today. Almost every man made product, such as cereals, breads and noodles at your local supermarket has been enriched with vitamins. The question is do we need to purchase a multivitamin? I think not, unless you have a specific defficency.

In my business I have had many MLM companies come to my office to try and sale their vitamins or supplements. I have looked at every company with an active mind and asked each company for their research. Each company brought me testimonials without one paper about their research. Testimonials are not research and I will not use it as scientific backing.

To see if my own research was wrong I went to the local university, UNLV, and talked with the head of their nutrition department, she has a PhD in nutrition. Before she would even talk with me she ask of my reasons and my thoughts on nutrition. As I explained to her my ideas about nutrition and vitamin use, she began to laugh. When asked why she was laughing, she proclaimed that I was the first exercise theorist that she had ever talked with that had a proper grounding in nutrition. So we both had a good laugh after that. She also gave me a 26 page report on vitamins and nutrition. We are not going to die tomorrow from the MLM's claim that are food and vitamin intake is terrible.

How did I come up with my ideas about nutrition and weather we needed large amounts? By studying man's nature and evolution. To know man's nature one must look at his past and where he has come from. To do that one must look at man through the window of evolution. Man was primarily a hunter and gatherer for a very large part of our history. Darwin's theory generally states that, those most adaptable to natures stressors will adapt and survive. Could we as humans ever have survivied through all the feast and famine if we required excessive amounts of vitamins and minerals, when food was so scarce. I do not think so. The genes that were good at being the most efficient with what they had are how we have gotten to this point today. Those that were not efficient, have been elimanted by nature. If we required large amounts of vitamins to function properly we would never have made it to this point.

Everything that we take in can become a toxin, even vitamins. Vitamins are micro-nutrients which means we require small amounts of them. We can not store large amonts of vitamins and when we have an excess they are processed out of the system. Two negative factors; 1) you are urinating away your money 2) you are putting a demand on your system to get rid of this vitamin that is now seen as a toxin. Resent research is showing that anti-toxins taken in large amounts is causing cancer.

So eat drink and be marry, but, in this context, if done outside of moderation you will pay the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can not store large amonts of vitamins and when we have an excess they are processed out of the system.

First, I want to congratulate you on having the courage to write about one of the most controversial areas of human life: the role of proper eating and appropriate exercise for achieving a long, healthy life.

I would like to use the statement I have quoted above as a point of discussion. Let's take a particular vitamin, B12, that I am very concerned about. I am on a very successful therapeutic diet that includes only fruit, vegetables, and roots (potatoes, rutabagas, and so forth). This diet has just about eliminated 42 years of inflammation problems (dermatitis, iritis, tendonitis, bursitis, arthritis, and colitis).

One of two possible missing nutrients is Vitamin B12, which -- according to what I have read -- is manufactured only by bacteria and comes to humans mostly through eating animal products -- such as clams and beef liver -- that contain it. I cannot eat such foods. So, I must take Vitamin B12 supplements.

My sources have said that the body does store B12 if it receives more than it uses each day. Is that true or not? How do you know?

So, in summary, I would question your statement about storage. Of course, you qualify if by saying "large amounts." What do you mean by "large amounts," relative to B12, for example?

These kinds of questions involve the epistemology of daily life: How does one get an answer, held with certainty (if possible!), on such an important issue. I say "important," because I have read in many places that a lack of B12 leads to irreparable nerve damage, a scary condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do take a multivitamin everyday and probably will continue to as I'm doing the Atkins diet. I actually eat more veggies than I ever did before but I think a multivitamin is a good way to cover any nutrients that I may not be getting otherwise.

Lost 60 lbs on Atkins too btw :excl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do take a multivitamin everyday and probably will continue to as I'm doing the Atkins diet.  I actually eat more veggies than I ever did before but I think a multivitamin is a good way to cover any nutrients that I may not be getting otherwise.

Lost 60 lbs on Atkins too btw  :excl:

Good job!!! Any good low carb meals you like to eat??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and be more specific with my definitions.

Vitamins are a group of complex chemicals that are essential for the normal functioniong of the body. With few exceptions, vitamin D, the body cannot manufacture these substances itself. A balanced diet that includes a variety of different types of foods is likely to contain adequeate amounts of all the vitamins, and supplements are ususally not needed.

There are two types of vitamins, fat-soluble and water-soluble. The fat soluble are (A, D, E and K) and are absorbed with fat from the intestine into the blood and then stored in fatty tissue, mainly the liver. They are not normally excreted in the urine. Water-soluble vatamins are C, B12 and the members of the B complex. Most of these vitamins are stored in the body for only a short period and are rapidly excreted in the urine if taken in greater amounts than the body requires. Vitamin B12 is the exception in that it is stored in the liver and may take years for deficiency symptons to appear. Deficiencies of the water-soluble vitamins are more likely to occur than fat-soluble vitamin deficiences.

Vitamin B12 plays a key role in the acitivities of serveral enzymes. It is also important in the production of genetic material of cells and thus in growth, utilization of carbohydrates in the diet and in the functioning of the nervous system. Deficiency of vitamin B12 is almost always due to an inability of the intestine to absorb the vitamin most commonly as a result of pernicious anemia. In some cases it may result from following a vegan diet. In such a case adding a B12 vitamin supplement is a likely alternative.

(I have to go, as I have a client, I will answer Inspectors questions and Chris' statement about Adkins diet, and why it is not good)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To understand why the Atkins Diet is not the best and can be harmful we must first understand the totality of metabolism.

Metabolism is more than just the aerobic and anaerobic pathways. It includes many other parts such as the urea cycle, corti cycle and the pentose phosphate cycle which are all continiously going. One acitivity might draw on one cycle more than another. An example of the most aerobic thing that you can do is to sleep, once you start to have function you move away from the aerobic cycle. (This is why Dr. Cooper's "Aerobics" theory is built on a fallacy.)

Second, are bodies are always trying to use sugar as our major source of energy. To be precies the brain runs off of 99.9% sugar alone. It cannot run off of fat nor protein. The average male brain requires 150 grams of carbs daily while the average female requires 125 grams of carbs daily. This is a total of 600 and 500 calories, according to our sex. This is just the brain alone which is not including your other body functions.

What happens when you are not taking in this amount? Catabolism of the muscle. When the body needs sugar it goes to the muscle cell and pulls out the protein, drawing on the amino acids and sending them to the liver. Once in the liver it converts the amino acids through a process called gluconeogenesis into glucose to be used by the body. Not until you have catabolized most of your own muscle mass does the body draw on the fat as an energy source.

So out of that weight loss, 70 to 80% is probably muscle or water. Muscle is 72% water and when the glycogen is drawn out of the muscle the water leaves also. (A pound of muscle has around 600 calories and a pound of fat has 3500 calories.) Ten pounds of weight loss and 2 are fat. So when people go off of the Atkins Diet, and they will because it leads towards acidosis and ketosis, they gain weight. Although this is usually in the form of glycogen and water retention and not fat at first.

The down side is that you are eating away the only entity that enhances your metabolism, lean body tissue. A pound of fat requries 2-4 calories a day to maintain. A pound of muscle requires from 15-20 calories a day to maintain. So begins the reciprocating of weight loss and weight gain, plus more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To understand why the Atkins Diet is not the best and can be harmful we must first understand the totality of metabolism. 

...

The down side is that you are eating away the only entity that enhances your metabolism, lean body tissue.  A pound of fat requries 2-4 calories a day to maintain.  A pound of muscle requires from 15-20 calories a day to maintain.  So begins the reciprocating of weight loss and weight gain, plus more.

I repsectfully have to disagree with you. The late Dr. Atkins' theory makes more sense to me than your post. He also manages to explain the obesity trends in our culture (not to mention the epedemic of diabetes).

I am not trashing your theory, but as a non-doctor and non-dietary expert I must choose from competing theories that: [a] sound plausable, work, [c] don't kill me, [d] come recomended from trusted friends

The Atkins diet provids this for me. I needed to lose a lot of weight (50 lbs) and low-carb helped me cut out. I also permanetely removed a lot of superflous sugar consumption from my diet (like 6 cans of coke per day, etc...).

I don't have time to pull out my 6th grade chemistry set and figure out what the proper diet is for man. Maybe scientists should have worked on this problem before sending a man to the moon. In any case, you ask 10 different experts on the proper diet for man and you will get 10 different answers. So, I find it difficult to share your confidence in your theory on how the human body works.

You may very well be right, but to insinuate that the Atkins diet is dangerous and "may do this" or "might cause that" sounds a lot like how the media trashed the John Galt Line bridge. I'm not convinced atkins is harmful. I need more proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not until you have catabolized most of your own muscle mass does the body draw on the fat as an energy source.

So out of that weight loss, 70 to 80% is probably muscle or water.  Muscle is 72% water and when the glycogen is drawn out of the muscle the water leaves also.  (A pound of muscle has around 600 calories and a pound of fat has 3500 calories.)  Ten pounds of weight loss and 2 are fat.  So when people go off of the Atkins Diet, and they will because it leads towards acidosis and ketosis, they gain weight.  Although this is usually in the form of glycogen and water retention and not fat at first. 

The down side is that you are eating away the only entity that enhances your metabolism, lean body tissue.  A pound of fat requries 2-4 calories a day to maintain.  A pound of muscle requires from 15-20 calories a day to maintain.  So begins the reciprocating of weight loss and weight gain, plus more.

I find it hard to believe that I lost 42 to 47lbs of muscle mass or water. When I dropped to 200lbs I gained a slimmer less puffy face, a drammatically decreased waistline and much smaller love handles. Places on the body noted for their fat content, not muscle. Now most of this weight loss occured without exercise, when I got close to my goal weight I actually started feeling good enough to do free weights so now I've got a decent amount of muscle mass indeed.

As far as metabolism is concerned, I have vastly more energy than I used to (not suprising considering I weighed 260 to start with). If I understand your argument right, the first two weeks of the diet, induction, my metabolism should have been adversely impacted by eating virtually no carbohydrates (about 20grams a day). I lost 15lbs in two weeks and I felt like superman. I certainly don't feel like my metabolism has decreased in any manner whatsoever. Just the opposite.

Now since then I've gained 10 lbs back, but the reason isn't because I maintained the diet. As I edged more carbs back into my diet I picked some bad ones to eat, La Grande Orange's Betters (about a half pound of gourmet chocolate and oatmeal cookie heaven).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average man requires 2100 calories a day to maintain his weight, and an extra 16 calories to gain lean body tissue. This equals about 15,000 calories on a weekly basis. A pound of fat has 3500 calories and a pound of muscle has 600 calories. To shed 10 pounds of fat would require 35,000 calories to be used on top of the calories one might be taking in. To lose 10 pounds of muscle requires 6,000 calories to be used. Considering the average male only requires about 15,000 calories a week, and a ten pounds of fat would require 35,000 calories, which do you think you lost.

Man is having a problem with diabetes and fatness not because of carbohydrates, but because of to many calories. Are history is full of feast and famine, so our ancestors that could conserve the largest amount of resources made it, and passed on their genes to their progeny. Man today is very good at storing energy/fat. Man would be fat if he ate carbs, fat or protein in excess. Today most humans do not have to go through feast and famine, but are genes do not change that quickly and will still are very good at storing fat.

I had a 500 pound man come to me in the year 2000, at this time he was a diabetic. I prescribed a diet of 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. He has now been diabetic free for a year and a half and he is also down to 220 pounds. Every time a human eats we release insulin, it does not matter what you eat, you release it. When the average person goes over 500/600 calories our pancreas is spiked to release more insulin to shun the extra calories, any extra calories, into the fat cell. Today we have an epidemic because of a lack of understanding of our nature, not from carbohydrates. We as humans require very few calories a day, and in overabundance we store them as fat, it is that simple. The epidemic is the unwillingness for people to look at their nature, through evolution, and where we have come from and been through.

I will state again that the muscle is 72% water and when the water is drawn out of the muscle cell it contracts like a sponge in the sun/heat. So ones loss of size in different areas of the body can primarily be loss of water retention. Humans gain and lose weight systematically, from our interior to our exterior. When humans lose weight, it happens in the opposite direction.

The weight gain that comes from re-introducing carbs back into your diet is primarily from glycogen and water retention back into the muscle cell. To gain ten pounds of fat would require that you ate 35,000 extra calories, have you done that? Man has labeled food good and bad, but the your metabolism can not tell the difference, calories are calories. The different macro-nutrients and their micro-nutrients will be used for their specific use, and the extra calories for any source will be stored as fat.

Generally the average human stores around 270 grams of sugar in the body daily. Most of it is stored in the muscle in the form of glycogen and around 70 grams is stored in the liver for fasting while we sleep. This is the primary source of sugars being used when you begin a low carb diet. For a better understanding of the totality of metabolism I recommend “Metabolism at a Glance” published by Blackwell Science.

Finally the quote about the “John Galt Line Bridge”. I do not care if you agree with me or not. Nor do I care what people with PhD‘s, MD‘s, Masters Degrees or any one else for that matter thinks about me or my ideas. At 36 I have been exercising for 22 years sometimes up to 3 hours a day, although this was incorrect. I also spent two and a half years as a nutrition major before I ran out of money and joined the Marine Corps. But none of this is needed to understand proper diet and exercise. Reason and reason’s tool, logic, is what I use to understand. I have read, researched and done trials and studies on myself and my clients to find the truth, and I truly do not care if you agree. I am six feet tall and weigh 160 pounds at 5.5% body fat. My total cholesterol level is 140, my blood pressure is 60/100, my pulse rate is 48 and my sugar level is 80. These are all the benefits people are searching for and can be achieved with a proper understanding of the human body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced atkins is harmful. I need more proof.

This is a general problem that all of us laymen face: What constitutes proof that a particular program is helpful or harmful?

In general, the answer, I have concluded, is to listen to explanations offered by the theorists (such as Dr. Atkins, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr. John McDougall, and others), decide whether the theories (if that is what they are) make sense on their own terms, and -- most importantly -- test their ideas against one's own experience, perhaps even in informal experiments on one's own body.

There are other tools available to laymen. For example, I ask myself whether the theorist (for lack of a better term) practices what he advocates. If he doesn't, then I stop listening to him as an individual. If he does, then I judge the results of his theory by his own condition, assuming there are no other overriding factors. In this instance, I would compare the health and longevity of Drs. Atkins, Ornish, and McDougall to see the results of their advocacy -- as one element helping me make up my mind which program, if any, to follow.

Are there other techniques laymen can use to help them safely cross the minefield of diet and exercise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The average man requires 2100 calories a day to maintain his weight, and an extra 16 calories to gain lean body tissue.  This equals about 15,000 calories on a weekly basis.  A pound of fat has 3500 calories and a pound of muscle has 600 calories.  To shed 10 pounds of fat would require 35,000 calories to be used on top of the calories one might be taking in.  To lose 10 pounds of muscle requires 6,000 calories to be used.  Considering the average male only requires about 15,000 calories a week, and a ten pounds of fat would require 35,000 calories, which do you think you lost.

I lost fat, not muscle. If your theory was correct, and my understanding of what you are saying is correct, then I would have seen loss of muscle on my quads, arms, shoulders, etc. Also I would not have been burning a lot of fat so areas like my caboose, my belly (not just the waistline but the thickness), and the fat deposits in the cheeks of my face should not have been dramatically effected. Or at least if they had it would be proportionately less than the greater loss in areas of muscles. My quads should have shriveled like grapes in an Arizona summer. That is not what happened.

Where I lost weight was in fat bearing body locations. Something that is easily verifiable by simply pinching flesh. Also this happened while I ate to my fill. It was certainly less calories than I was eating before but not as much as would have been the case on a reduced calorie diet.

I'm certainly not disputing that a reduced calorie diet will cause you to lose weight, or that combining a reduced calorie diet with exercise is not a great way to lose weight. It sounds like you are in fantastic shape, and have the discipline required to stay there.

But the hollowing out effect that seems to be what is described by the theory has no relation whatsoever to my experience at weight loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, are bodies are always trying to use sugar as our major source of energy.  To be precies the brain runs off of 99.9% sugar alone.  It cannot run off of fat nor protein.  The average male brain requires 150 grams of carbs daily while the average female requires 125 grams of carbs daily.  This is a total of 600 and 500 calories, according to our sex.  This is just the brain alone which is not including your other body functions.

But the brain can run on ketones, which are produced when the liver is depleted of glycogen stores and there are no carbohydrates being digested.

What happens when you are not taking in this amount?  Catabolism of the muscle.  When the body needs sugar it goes to the muscle cell and pulls out the protein, drawing on the amino acids and sending them to the liver.  Once in the liver it converts the amino acids through a process called gluconeogenesis into glucose to be used by the body.    Not until you have catabolized most of your own muscle mass does the body draw on the fat as an energy source.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Free fatty acid levels are immediately elevated by the body in a carbohydrate-deficient and liver glycogen depleted state to fuel everything but brain activity. Ketones are then made from fatty acid metabolism in the liver to provide energy for the brain. Fatty acid mobilization is controlled by hormone sensitive lipase--a factor which is highly dependent on the level of insulin and catecholamines in the bloodstream. Insulin is the primary inactivator of HSL (although it is mildly sensitive to fat and protein), so it follows that restricting carbohydrates would lead to increases in HSL and therefore FFA mobilization. The main activators of HSL are catecholamines, which increase cyclic AMP activity and therefore upregulate HSL--and guess what primarily lowers cAMP?--insulin.

That's the theory, and then there is all of the anecdotal evidence that is contrary to your post--for example the bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts who have consistently relied on ketogenic diets to achieve low levels of bodyfat while sparing muscle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This information is primarily from my understanding of Dr. Salway's "Metabolism at a Glance". Sorry for the length, but I think it is warranted.

Ketogenesis

During high rates of fatty acid oxidation, primarily in the liver, large amounts of acetyl-CoA are generated. These exceed the capacity of the TCA cycle, and one result is the synthesis of ketone bodies, or ketogenesis. The ketone bodies are acetoacetate, b-hydroxybutyrate, and acetone.

The formation of acetoacetyl-CoA occurs by condensation of two moles of acetyl-CoA through a reversal of the thiolase catalyzed reaction of fat oxidation. Acetoacetyl-CoA and an additional acetyl-CoA are converted to b-hydroxy-b-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) by HMG-CoA synthase, an enzyme found in large amounts only in the liver. Some of the HMG-CoA leaves the mitochondria, where it is converted to mevalonate (the precursor for cholesterol synthesis) by HMG-CoA reductase. HMG-CoA in the mitochondria is converted to acetoacetate by the action of HMG-CoA lyase. Acetoacetate can undergo spontaneous decarboxylation to acetone, or be enzymatically converted to b-hydroxybutyrate through the action of b-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase. When the level of glycogen in the liver is high the production of b-hydroxybutyrate increases.

When carbohydrate utilization is low or deficient, the level of oxaloacetate will also be low, resulting in a reduced flux through the TCA cycle. This in turn leads to increased release of ketone bodies from the liver for use as fuel by other tissues. In early stages of starvation, when the last remnants of fat are oxidized, heart and skeletal muscle will consume primarily ketone bodies to preserve glucose for use by the brain. Acetoacetate and b-hydroxybutyrate, in particular, also serve as major substrates for the biosynthesis of neonatal cerebral lipids.

Ketone bodies are utilized by extrahepatic tissues through the conversion of b-hydroxybutyrate to acetoacetate and of acetoacetate to acetoacetyl-CoA. The first step involves the reversal of the b-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase reaction, and the second involves the action of acetoacetate:succinyl-CoA transferase, also called ketoacyl-CoA-transferase. The latter enzyme is present in all tissues except the liver. Importantly, its absence allows the liver to produce ketone bodies but not to utilize them. This ensures that extrahepatic tissues have access to ketone bodies as a fuel source during prolonged starvation.

Regulation of Fatty Acid Metabolism

In order to understand how the synthesis and degradation of fats needs to be exquisitely regulated, one must consider the energy requirements of the organism as a whole. The blood is the carrier of triacylglycerols in the form of VLDLs and chylomicrons, fatty acids bound to albumin, amino acids, lactate, ketone bodies and glucose. The pancreas is the primary organ involved in sensing the organism's dietary and energetic states by monitoring glucose concentrations in the blood. Low blood glucose stimulates the secretion of glucagon, whereas, elevated blood glucose calls for the secretion of insulin.

The metabolism of fat is regulated by two distinct mechanisms. One is short-term regulation, which can come about through events such as substrate availability, allosteric effectors and/or enzyme modification. The other mechanism, long-term regulation, is achieved by alteration of the rate of enzyme synthesis and turn-over.

ACC is the rate-limiting (committed) step in fatty acid synthesis. This enzyme is activated by citrate and inhibited by palmitoyl-CoA and other long-chain fatty acyl-CoAs. ACC activity can also be affected by phosphorylation. For instance, glucagon-stimulated increases in PKA activity result in the phosphorylation of certain serine residues in ACC leading to decreased activity of the enzyme. By contrast, insulin leads to PKA-independent phosphorylation of ACC at sites distinct from glucagon, which bring about increased ACC activity. Both of these reaction chains are examples of short-term regulation.

Insulin, a product of the well-fed state, stimulates ACC and FAS synthesis, whereas starvation leads to a decrease in the synthesis of these enzymes. Adipose tissue levels of lipoprotein lipase also are increased by insulin and decreased by starvation. However, the effects of insulin and starvation on lipoprotein lipase in the heart are just the inverse of those in adipose tissue. This sensitivity allows the heart to absorb any available fatty acids in the blood in order to oxidize them for energy production. Starvation also leads to increases in the levels of cardiac enzymes of fatty acid oxidation, and to decreases in FAS and related enzymes of synthesis.

Adipose tissue contains hormone-sensitive lipase, which is activated by PKA-dependent phosphorylation; this activation increases the release of fatty acids into the blood. This in turn leads to the increased oxidation of fatty acids in other tissues such as muscle and liver. In the liver, the net result (due to increased acetyl-CoA levels) is the production of ketone bodies. This would occur under conditions in which the carbohydrate stores and gluconeogenic precursors available in the liver are not sufficient to allow increased glucose production. The increased levels of fatty acid that become available in response to glucagon or epinephrine are assured of being completely oxidized, because PKA also phosphorylates ACC; the synthesis of fatty acid is thereby inhibited.

Insulin has the opposite effect to glucagon and epinephrine: it increases the synthesis of triacylglycerols (and glycogen). One of the many effects of insulin is to lower cAMP levels, which leads to increased dephosphorylation through the enhanced activity of protein phosphatases such as PP-1. With respect to fatty acid metabolism, this yields dephosphorylated and inactive hormone-sensitive lipase. Insulin also stimulates certain phosphorylation events. This occurs through activation of several cAMP-independent kinases, one of which phosphorylates and thereby stimulates the activity of ACC.

Fat metabolism can also be regulated by malonyl-CoA-mediated inhibition of carnitine acyltransferase I. Such regulation serves to prevent de novo synthesized fatty acids from entering the mitochondria and being oxidized.

Clinical Significance of Ketogenesis

The production of ketone bodies occurs at a relatively low rate during normal feeding and under conditions of normal physiological status. Normal physiological responses to carbohydrate shortages cause the liver to increase the production of ketone bodies from the acetyl-CoA generated from fatty acid oxidation. This allows the heart and skeletal muscles primarily to use ketone bodies for energy, thereby preserving the limited glucose for use by the brain.

The most significant disruption in the level of ketosis, leading to profound clinical manifestations, occurs in untreated insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. This physiological state, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), results from a reduced supply of glucose (due to a significant decline in circulating insulin) and a concomitant increase in fatty acid oxidation (due to a concomitant increase in circulating glucagon). The increased production of acetyl-CoA leads to ketone body production that exceeds the ability of peripheral tissues to oxidize them. Ketone bodies are relatively strong acids (pKa around 3.5), and their increase lowers the pH of the blood. This acidification of the blood is dangerous chiefly because it impairs the ability of hemoglobin to bind oxygen.

Ketosis defined

Ketosis is the presence in the blood of abnormally high levels of acidic substances called ketones. The normal body fuel is glucose. Ketones are produced when there isn’t enough glucose in the bloodstream, and fats have to be used. When fats are used excessively as fuels, they are eventually converted to ketones. The real danger in ketosis is that ketones are acidic, and high levels of ketones make the blood abnormally acid.

Normally the blood ketone levels are low, but in starvation, untreated diabetes and when the diet is very high in fats and low in carbohydrates, the levels rise.

Symptoms

Ketones give the breath a sickly, fruity odour like nail-varnish remover or pear-drops. Ketoacidosis (high levels of ketones with acidity) causes nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, confusion, and, if not rapidly treated, coma and death

A few final notes about bodybuilders and other anecdotal "evidence". There is a DNA enzyme called myostatin which has been shown to regulate the totality of muscle and lean body tissue. Most humans have very large amounts of this enzyme and will never accumulate large amounts of muscle, no matter how they train. Second the professional bodybuilding associations are full of people using large amounts of steroids and growth hormones, along with being gentically abnormal. Studies have shown that even on a starvation diet, steroid use can increase muscle mass.

Lastly, what bodybuilders rely on is large amounts of protein, upwards of 400 to 500 grams a day of protein. Will this do them any good considering that muscle is 72% water? A man of 170 pounds only requires 62 grams of protein a day. That includes if he wants to train to gain muscle. The rest will have to be dealt with by the body. What happens to all that extra protein? It is sent to the liver and converted to glucose through a process called gluconeogenesis. Imagine that, it is converted into what the body needs to run properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brain can not run off of ketones as explained in my post early, under the heading "Clinical Significance of Ketogenesis". The brain primarily runs off of sugar, 99.9% to be precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few final notes about bodybuilders and other anecdotal "evidence".  There is a DNA enzyme called myostatin which has been shown to regulate the totality of muscle and lean body tissue.  Most humans have very large amounts of this enzyme and will never accumulate large amounts of muscle, no matter how they train.

So does this apply to all athletes on ketogenic diets Ray? Are you saying that all or most of those who lost more fat than muscle on ketogenic diets did so because of genetically high amounts of myostatin?

  Second the professional bodybuilding associations are full of people using large amounts of steroids and growth hormones, along with being gentically abnormal.  Studies have shown that even on a starvation diet, steroid use can increase muscle mass.

Ray, how does this relate? The vast number of athletes like bodybuilders who've used ketogenic diets to lose fat don't rely on hormones. Yes, professionals do all sorts of things, but I hardly see how this validates your point.

Lastly, what bodybuilders rely on is large amounts of protein, upwards of 400 to 500 grams a day of protein.

What bodybuilders rely on 400 to 500 grams of protein per day--aproximately 2000 calories worth (and a big chunk of a paycheque)? I certainly don't. Maybe you're talking about that slim 0.1% again. Infact, if you're stuck on the idea of only genetically superior athletes utilizing ketogenic diets effectively, why not explain why my neighbour and friend's father both lost much more adipose tissue than muscle during their ketogenic diets.

  Will this do them any good considering that muscle is 72% water?  A man of 170 pounds only requires 62 grams of protein a day.  That includes if he wants to train to gain muscle.

Do you have a source for this number? I've seen studies by Lemon et al citing 0.8 grams per kg of body mass only provide a net nitrogen balance in weight training healthy men.

  The rest will have to be dealt with by the body.  What happens to all that extra protein?  It is sent to the liver and converted to glucose through a process called gluconeogenesis.  Imagine that, it is converted into what the body needs to run properly.

Even in caloric deficiency, gluconeogenesis isn't as common when hormone sensitive lipase is elevated because lipid free fatty acid levels are high. Basically, your body wants to do alot to avoid gluconeogenesis in those conditions, because it is a highly inefficient process, especially when it has FFA's lying around. In general, when someone is eating that much protein, they're pissing all the excess away. But yes, I can see gluconeogenesis happening in moderate amounts with those people eating extreme amounts of protein with no fat.

Ray, I have a question about your long post--what exactly are you addressing and relating it to in this thread? There's no argument from me, ketoacidosis is certainly dangerous, which you should definitely watch out for if you're a diabetic not undergoing treatment. Ketones though, and ketogenic diets, don't seem to cause problems other than in people with preexisting renal problems. Why compare something dangerous like diabetic ketoacidosis with a normal physiological state like ketosis?

Additionally, although I'm familiar with the synthesis of many of these proteins, why did you have to bring up issues like the intermediates which serve no purpose (IMO) to the discussion at all? Instead of "HMG-CoA in the mitochondria is converted to acetoacetate by the action of HMG-CoA lyase. Acetoacetate can undergo spontaneous decarboxylation to acetone, or be enzymatically converted to b-hydroxybutyrate through the action of b-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase", why not just say acetone is produced?

The brain can not run off of ketones as explained in my post early, under the heading "Clinical Significance of Ketogenesis". The brain primarily runs off of sugar, 99.9% to be precise.

Yes, the brain does run on glucose, when it's available. Honestly though, paleolithic humans went extremely long periods on only meat. Were they brain dead the entire winter? :excl: Did everyone's brains collapse until the advent of agriculture? It'd be interesting to devise a tale on how paleolithic man survived if his brain could not function on anything but glucose. You might say "what about gluconeogenesis," but humans store fat efficiently for a reason--to provide fuel in the absense of food for the entire body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand of my own years of research and reading, is that high amounts of ketones in the body leads to ketosis and then onto diabetes. So to keep this type of diet ongoing for years at a time will lead to diabetes. This is what I was trying to show by the long chain from my earlier forum.

Yes, most of the protein's amino acids will be flushed out of the system through a persons urine. But, the question is why go that far in the first place? Why take in such large amounts of protein, where your liver has to work even harder to get rid of a substance it can't use at that time. High amounts of protein also put a demand for larger amounts of water to metabolize the protein. So a person on a high protein diet will definetly want to increase their total intake of water.

By our own evolution we are very good at storing fat, and that is what primarily fed anciet man during long periods of no food or starvation. Hormone sensitive lipase is also released when under extreme strees, fight or flight, to conserve the glucose and glycogen in the body. (This can be produced to happen today through a very intense workout.) Ancient man, I think can be shown to have been under a lot more stress than man today. But, I think you just answered your own question about brain deadness. When in starvation for long periods of time and needing sugar for the brain, when none is coming in, the body will go to the protein and create glucose through gluconeogenesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to correct myself from earlier about ketosis causing diabetes. After writing that statement I wanted to find, in my notes and books, where I had read it. At this time I can not find it, so I will retract it.

I still think ketosis is a potentially serious condition, in which excessive amounts of ketones accumulate in the body. Ketosis results whenever glucose is not available to use as a source of energy, which forces the body to use fats, instead. Which the use of fat for energy is a good thing, but carbohydrate ristriction does not have to happen for our bodies to use fat. A calorie reduction in general will cause the body to use the fat as energy while still using glucose for other parts of metabolism. When the body uses fat for energy it leads to fatty acids being released into the blood; they are converted to ketones.

The underlying causes of ketosis include fasting or starvation, and untreated diabetses mellitus, in which the lack of insulin prevents glucose from being used as fuel. In fasting or starvation gradual reintrduction of a nutritous diet is effective for ending ketosis.

Another side effect of large amounts of acid in the body is acidosis. Acidosis is a disturbance of the body's acid-base balance which there is an accumulation of acid or loss of alkali. There are two types, metabolic and respiratory. Your kidneys have to deal with this large amout of acid. This can lead to kidney problems and failure. When excessive amounts of protein are taken in the kidney has to get rid of the nitrogenous waste (waste created when the body processes protein), and this has been linked to kidney diesease. Although there are some conflicting opinions on this subject. Other studies have shown a reduction in kidney diesease while reducing total protein intake, this does not mean no protein.

My main point from earlier is that there is no real need to restrict carbohydrates any more than any other macro-nutrient when trying to lose weight. A person should concentrate on the totality of calories. Calories in any form will make us fat, if in overabundance. Example: When I was 20 years old, 16 years ago, I worked out 3 hours a day, 6 days a week, this went on for over 3 years. My meals were primarily protein, I would eat a 4-6 ounce steak with a piece of light bread. I would eat all egg whites for another meal. I would finish with tuna fish in water and rotate this five to seven times a day. My weight increased up to 225 pounds with a 40 inch waste. Calories are calories and your metabolism does not care where the excess comes from. I now train less than 30 minutes a week and eat around 2100 to 2400 calories a day coming from 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat, I weigh 160 pounds and my waist is 28 inches. I am also the strongest I have ever been, carrying the most amount of muscle I have ever had.

To Bryan and the others that do not agree, so be it, I do not care. We are obviously not going to sway each others premise. So I will let reality be the final judge and end here. Eat, drink and be merry, get what you can from exercise and diet, then move on and enjoy life!

Ray K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have a valid reference for this incredible claim?

Stephen, I never thought of it as much of an incredible claim because it has been established for probably over half a century. I went to Pubmed and tried to get a study, but there were just too many unrelated results. However, try this link. You don't even have to click on the webpages, just read the descriptions of nearly all of those websites and they contain the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen, I never thought of it as much of an incredible claim because it has been established for probably over half a century. I went to Pubmed and tried to get a study, but there were just too many unrelated results. However, try this link. You don't even have to click on the webpages, just read the descriptions of nearly all of those websites and they contain the answer.

Bryan, when you make a scientific claim you should really be prepared to provide at least one actual scientific reference directly, not a hodgepodge of websites.

But, regardless, I followed your link. The first entry is simply a posting from a veternarian, no scientific references provided. The second entry is written by a PhD in "Health Principles" (whatever that means) who is also a "Janov-certified Primal Therapist in private practice." Not exactly too endearing to me, but at least he does provide an actual scientific reference, "Barnes RH et al, J Biol Chem, 1939;131:413-23." Have you read this paper, Bryan? I have read it, and I have it in front of me right now. I challenge you, your "Health Principles" PhD, or anyone else for that matter, to point to the page number, paragraph, and line number of this reference where your claim is stated and validated.

I have looked no further in your list then the first two, and have no intention of looking further. I suspect you and I have different standards as to what we call science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan,

I was wrong and your were correct about ketones, they can be used to fuel the brain during starvation or glucose depletion. So there are two sources of energy for the brain, one during regular function and one for starvation or glucose depletion. I found the information after re-reading "Metabolism at a Glance".

Although I still think you can lose fat more efficiently and for long-term gains by just reducing your total calories. My reasoning is as follows:

1) On a low calorie diet, that is not carb depleted, your body can still convert fat into ATP for energy and not have to create large amounts of ketones.

2) When such a large amount of fatty acids are broken down and turned into ketones it can lead to acidosis, which can be very harmful to the kidneys.

3) While always keeping on a low-carb or no-carb diet you will always be producing ketones for the brains fuel. The acids left over in large amounts will have to be dealt with by the nephrons in the kidneys. Long term this can be life threating as it uses the nephrons quicker than a rational diet.

4) What happens when you have converted most of the fatty acids into ketones and they have been used to fuel the brain. The body will go to the bodies protein storage to draw on the amino acids to be converted into glucose. The brain will still require around 600 kcal a day to function properly.

5) A person could eat large amounts of fat and protein, so the the fatty acids could be turned into ketones. Although, this could lead to other medical problems such as plaque build up and high cholesterol levels.

Lastly, studies have shown that 90% of people that lose weight gain it all back, plus more. What do the 10% have in common? They lose 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 pounds per week. This is a raional goal considering a pound of fat has 3,500 calories and the average man only requires 2,100 calories a day.

(Thanks for setting me straight on the ketones)

Ray K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan,

I was wrong and your were correct about ketones, they can be used to fuel the brain during starvation or glucose depletion.  So there are two sources of energy for the brain, one during regular function and one for starvation or glucose depletion.  I found the information after re-reading "Metabolism at a Glance".

Does your source have a scientific reference for this, one which demonstrates that the brain can function properly absent of d-glucose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main point from earlier is that there is no real need to restrict carbohydrates any more than any other macro-nutrient when trying to lose weight.  A person should concentrate on the totality of calories.

Your position seems much like that of Covert Bailey, who did the TV series "Fit or Fat". He was the first expert who ever made sense of nutrition to me, with his explanations. To me, it is common sense to keep a balance with food intake.

Bailey did wonderful humorous antics as he likened fat to big logs, and sugar to kindling. No kindling, no fire to burn the logs.

One example was of a woman putting on weight despite long runs daily. He explained that she was using up her kindling, and thus was exercising too much. By resting, her glucose levels would rise enough to start burning fat again.

What a great series that was, with a whole auditorium of laughing fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites