How many carbs to un-keto-adapt?

[wodgina]

What is so bad about using protein to make glucose?

[KD]

What haven't you understood? Have I said something unclearly?What do you mean? Precisely. Yes, daily.

well, you make it sound impossible to function when not at these minimums you listed. I can see expressing concerns or something about long term problems if you feel that is right, but you make it sounds like one cannot function in performance (mental or physical) without these minimum levels of glucose provided by plant food. So I was curious what scientific process you think is happening in people that can perform, and how long before the king of issues you are suggesting.

Yes, daily. But as I said it's a minimum. For me it's too little.

what do you mean by too little? as in.. What is the exact repercussion when below? Energy? You've mention you stay keto-adapted at high levels of carbs, but isn't being keto-adapted mean precisely able to get energy without carbs if necessary or just generally?

also I don't understand much generally with this issue at all, other then what i've read and experienced, so I was hoping for something from scratch , but if you could answer the above that would suffice.

[Hannibal]

What is so bad about using protein to make glucose?

In cat liver - there is nothing wrong. It's "desidgned" to do so.
Human metabolism is different.
How different? The answer is in biochemistry.

[Hannibal]

  well, you make it sound impossible to function when not at these minimums you listed.

Yes it is possible to function without them. But either you will get them from proteins that you eat or from your muscle proteins.

So I was curious what scientific process you think is happening in people that can perform, and how long before the king of issues you are suggesting.

The production of glucose from puryvate, lactate, glycerol and amino acids.

what do you mean by too little? as in.. What is the exact repercussion when below? Energy? You've mention you stay keto-adapted at high levels of carbs, but isn't being keto-adapted mean precisely able to get energy without carbs if necessary or just generally?

High levels are - 500, 600, 700 g of carbs.
As I previously said some kinds of cells MUST BE FUELED by glucose, if somebody likes it or not; and ketones can fuel the other ones.
If your blood lactate reaches 4 mmol/L (while some physical activity) then glucose is the NUMBER ONE. It's only the example.

also I don't understand much generally with this issue at all, other then what i've read and experienced, so I was hoping for something from scratch , but if you could answer the above that would suffice.

"Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition" would suffice you

[miles]

@miles
You are obviously wrong.
50-70 g of glucose is the minimum - if you eat less that doesn't mean that you'll use ketones in liue of glucose; the branch chain amino acids will be broken down and so on.
Ketones cannot fuel the cells witout mitochondria, cannot fuel high-intensity anaerobic exercises. Only glucose can.
If you eat 50-70 g of glucose you'll use a plethora of ketones to fuel the cells that can be fueled this way.
But it's a minimum. For a young man who is physically and metally active the minimum is at 100 g, more or less.

When you have carbohydrates your body runs off of them until they are gone, sparing your muscle and fat.

When you use up the carbs, you begin to use protein for glucose, and that's when you start producing ketones, and the more adapted you are to this state, the more of those ketones you can use rather than expelling them(sweat/urine), and the less protein you need to use. Of course, anaerobic activity takes more glucose as you can't use the ketones. You can replace your protein tissue when you eat protein, just as you replace your fat.

[Hannibal]

When you have carbohydrates your body runs off of them until they are gone, sparing your muscle and fat.
When you use up the carbs, you begin to use protein for glucose, and that's when you start producing ketones

False.
The glucose on LC fuels primarily the cells that must be fueled this way.
That doesn't whatsover disturb the ketones production.
Those are the different metabolic pathways.

[wodgina]

In cat liver - there is nothing wrong. It's "desidgned" to do so.
Human metabolism is different.
How different? The answer is in biochemistry.

I'm interested in human diets and real answers.

[TrueCarnivore]

actually......

The first day of no carb, you will have small amount of gluconeogenesis. I remember reading it's around 1/3 of a pound.

Now if you've already spent much time exercising and existing in a fat-adapted state, I would guess it to be even less.

Once fat-adapted.... gluconeogenesis is a rarity... triglycerides get broken down into the free fatty acids and the two glyceride components in lipolysis to combine and make glycogen.

Most of our body can run on ketones alone, and the small percentage that relies solely on glycogen get it from lipolysis. Gluconeogensis doesn't continue to occur to any significant degree.

It's known for being protein sparring for that very reason!! Human growth hormone mobilizing free fatty acids that feed the muscle and also the majority of our organism!

The body does everything it can to conserve protein.

Personally, I've experienced nothing but great results when it comes to muscle preservation. I do daily 15-20 hour fasts fat-adapted, working a physical job the entire time.

[KD]

Yes it is possible to function without them. But either you will get them from proteins that you eat or from your muscle proteins.

 High levels are - 500, 600, 700 g of carbs.

As I previously said some kinds of cells MUST BE FUELED by glucose

 "Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition" would suffice you

thanks, for the book, I like pictures.   eventually i'll try to read it good.

I was just saying 'high' on the spectrum of what is within LC or whatever. not outrageous amounts. Its been proposed by some (as per the surrounding conversation it seems) that the levels you suggest actually impact the process you are speaking of. Like I said, I don't knw, but that was my impression too.

to me, I've been personally trying to experiment with higher carb levels (over 30g) as I can see advantages nutritionally (possibly) but havn't seen any overall effect on performance. Since I don't do alot of sugary fruits, it actually takes effort to boot. So, while i'm interested in the discussion intellectually and don't really want to be an example of the pros of either, I''m also a little stumped why I havn't had issues with anaerobic stuff, or endurance really. In a nutshell, my muscles don't seem to waste even with low dietary protein/glucose. that is why I thought you were referring maybe to just the very long term which I can't comment on, but that doesn't seem to be the case?

not saying this person has any integrity, particularly in regards to raw, but Nora Gedgaudas suggests that a LC (probably not keto) low protein diet is sufficient for a pro strength trainer. If they are still LC and chewing up tons of exertion, why wouldn't they also need tons of dietary glucose? even if they were around 100g or so, wouldn't this get used up with immense activity while someone actually adapted to keto wouldn't have a problem?

[Hannibal]

to me, I've been personally trying to experiment with higher carb levels (over 30g) as I can see advantages nutritionally (possibly) but havn't seen any overall effect on performance. Since I don't do alot of sugary fruits, it actually takes effort to boot. So, while i'm interested in the discussion intellectually and don't really want to be an example of the pros of either, I''m also a little stumped why I havn't had issues with anaerobic stuff, or endurance really.

So follow your way of eating, really
I experimented with such low levels of carbs several years ago and I realized after some time that I couldn't maintain my body mass - I simply lost it, gradually. Besides I felt overall not optimally.
And I realized that it agrees with the biochemistry, generally.

[miles]

Once fat-adapted.... gluconeogenesis is a rarity... triglycerides get broken down into the free fatty acids and the two glyceride components in lipolysis to combine and make glycogen.

I thought most of the glucose produced from the glycerol was used to fuel gluconeogenesis.

[KD]

So follow your way of eating, really
I experimented with such low levels of carbs several years ago and I realized after some time that I couldn't maintain my body mass - I simply lost it, gradually. Besides I felt overall not optimally.
And I realized that it agrees with the biochemistry, generally.

oh, come now. I'm not looking for enforcement of my eating, I'm just reading what you are saying and as I said before - don't seem to line up with what i've read on this forum or elsewhere - as well as my experience. If you can actually sell me on why its absolutely as necessary - as you were implying (and not so relative to differnt individuals), I would bite and do more experimenting. I wasn't suggesting I have it easy with maintaining mass, I was just saying I don't seem to be in some kind of metabolic ruin, unable to doing activity like you were suggesting. I'm not bragging, its just happens to be the opposite and there must be some reason as to why. Even without experiencing issues its good to know any underlying potential for such.

I'm looking for ways to think about these issues differently - and I assume are others - but individual experiments don't prove that its impossible or dangerous to not take in your minimums for dietary glucose (and be active etc..), even if I might agree there might be 'safe-bets' particularly for growing people - kids.

[Hannibal]

Once fat-adapted.... gluconeogenesis is a rarity... triglycerides get broken down into the free fatty acids and the two glyceride components in lipolysis to combine and make glycogen.

Most of our body can run on ketones alone, and the small percentage that relies solely on glycogen get it from lipolysis. Gluconeogensis doesn't continue to occur to any significant degree.

That's obviously untrue.
From 100 g of diatery fat you've got only 10 g of carbs.
How much can you eat? 200 g, 300 g?
That's true that ketones can fuel a plethora of our cells, but not all. The ones that are GLUCOSE DEPENDENT need a mininum of 50-70 g of glucose, but when someone is mentally and physically (anaerobically) active then the requirement exceeds the 100 g for sure and can reach 150 g. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html
Puryvate, which is the output of glycolisis is quickly converted to oxaloacetate which is needed to metabolize the Acetyl-CoA.
That way the carbs are the best "kindling" (generate the best FLAME) to burn the FAT.

[Hannibal]

If you can actually sell me on why its absolutely as necessary - as you were implying (and not so relative to differnt individuals), I would bite and do more experimenting.

I said that it is better to eat those amounts of carbs from biochemical point of view.
But as you definitely know there are people who eat some junk food and feel like they are in heaven, train very well on a gym, etc.
So being young, with good genes is very helpful.

[KD]

@miles
You are obviously wrong.
50-70 g of glucose is the minimum - if you eat less that doesn't mean that you'll use ketones in liue of glucose; the branch chain amino acids will be broken down and so on.
Ketones cannot fuel the cells witout mitochondria, cannot fuel high-intensity anaerobic exercises. Only glucose can.
If you eat 50-70 g of glucose you'll use a plethora of ketones to fuel the cells that can be fueled this way.

Yes, daily. But as I said it's a minimum. For me it's too little.

to me this is entirely different then saying 'it is better to eat those amounts of carbs from biochemical point of view'. In fact i've said the same thing in regards to typical 'low carb' (low-er fat) diets that might as well have a heavy amount of carbs if they are not burning fats efficiently - because they will have to go through inefficient processes prior to some kind of adaptation.

You seem to be suggesting that people can consume a larger portion of carbs than I've ever seen suggested to maintain this process -> 30 and even in some cases over 100g. You also pretty much did imply that it would be impossible to be active and would present issues with breaking down of muscle proteins if there was inadequate glucose as being defaults. defaults that can't be avoided no matter how healthy a person would be. as per cooked junk, I think that is kind of irrelevant, particularly for me. in 5 years of various raw permutations (high to VLC), this is having sound progress, but more importantly doesn't seem to require the levels you are saying to avoid such issues - yet, but that doesn't preclude improvement or my desire to taken in optimal information or nutrition.

if someone is not taking in glucose and thriving, obviously the performance is coming from somewhere. In a sense, since you say you don't do well without such levels regularly, it is suspicious how much you are adapted to burning fat exclusively for energy. Not saying you are not fundamentally right with what works for you the best, or possibly even for myself in the future, I just know that lacking plant plant foods has no negative impact on my current energy or performance (if we are talking days and weeks, never gone months). Although it did drastically i'd say for at least 6 months strait or so if not longer to 'adapt' and probably am not completely efficient in the process. Right now  I consider plant food valuable for nutrition (unconvinced for this metabolic stuff), but possibly not necessary I guess.

But to be clear, I am very open minded with this issue about making these kind of decisions myself, I just don't think you are making case against 'VLC' or "ZC' as bad, other then now what 'might' be most optimal for athletics. There are after-all a 'plethora' of reasons people don't consume carbs -right or wrong - independent of wanting to burn fat as fuel most efficiently as being crucial, even tho for me personally i'm definitely influenced by the latter and affect my eating of carbs, so yeah I'm open to being convinced!

[miles]

That's obviously untrue.
From 100 g of diatery fat you've got only 10 g of carbs.
How much can you eat? 200 g, 300 g?
That's true that ketones can fuel a plethora of our cells, but not all. The ones that are GLUCOSE DEPENDENT need a mininum of 50-70 g of glucose, but when someone is mentally and physically (anaerobically) active then the requirement exceeds the 100 g for sure and can reach 150 g. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html
Puryvate, which is the output of glycolisis is quickly converted to oxaloacetate which is needed to metabolize the Acetyl-CoA.
That way the carbs are the best "kindling" (generate the best FLAME) to burn the FAT.

If you have no dietary carbs, triglycerides in the liver, delivered from adipose, are broken down to glycerol and fatty acids. These glycerol molecules pair up to form glucose, which is then broken to pyruvate.. This fuels gluconeogenesis in the liver. At the same time, those fatty acids which were released are converted to ketones in the liver.

?

pyruvate is just a stage between sugars and atp??

[Hannibal]

You seem to be suggesting that people can consume a larger portion of carbs than I've ever seen suggested to maintain this process -> 30 and even in some cases over 100g.

So you probably haven't seen enough

You also pretty much did imply that it would be impossible to be active and would present issues with breaking down of muscle proteins if there was inadequate glucose as being defaults.

I was only implyiing that it is better to eat a sufficient amount of carbs than not to eat them.
But you you can be very active without them, yet you've got to eat much more protein.
Ihalmiut people had eaten up to 4 kg of meat a day, usually from caribou. And yes, they were physically very active.

There are after-all a 'plethora' of reasons people don't consume carbs -right or wrong - independent of wanting to burn fat as fuel most efficiently as being crucial, even tho for me personally i'm definitely influenced by the latter and affect my eating of carbs, so yeah I'm open to being convinced!

So you don't understand that eating too litle of carbs makes the fat metabolism worse?

[KD]

So you probably haven't seen enough
I was only implyiing that it is better to eat a sufficient amount of carbs than not to eat them.
But you you can be very active without them, yet you've got to eat much more protein.
Ihalmiut people had eaten up to 4 kg of meat a day, usually from caribou. And yes, they were physically very active. So you don't understand that eating too litle of carbs makes the fat metabolism worse?

well, technically I have seen the breakdowns by Mark Sisson and such that have extended ranges of carbs in regards to this issue and for athletes, with the levels below your minimums indeed being listed as 'for rapid weight-loss' or something. I dunno to me there is just so little evidence of people going really deep into extended trials - particularly on raw - to make such conclusions that it will always be difficult to gain weight/perform etc without glucose especially if some people do seem to defy it.

at the same time, I can see how you think eating too little carbs can also impact the fat burning process itself negatively, but honestly yes, i'm still confused by the scientific process that says this is so, other than your convincing terms like kindling. Pretty sure i've never eaten 1 kg of muscle meat in a day, hence why i'm presently on the fence with this issue I guess. It would still be hard to say the protein amount (Ihalmiut) was necessary over just the amount and type of food they could acquire. Fats alone seem to do the trick for me, and perhaps maybe willpower does the rest

its ok. I appreciate your responses. lets see if anyone else can offer their explanations.

[Hannibal]

lets see if anyone else can offer their explanations.

I hope that gosu44 will contribute to that discussion.

[riy freeman]

Well I have more thoughts on this later, but a few things biochem wise :

The glycerol we get from fatty acids is supposedly not a significant source of glucose in general but if we were to derive glucose, yes the glycerol would be oxidized to DHAP and then Glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate. The G3p wouldn't go to pyruvate (due to concentrations of metabolic regulating factors of the time) if the point was to make glucose. It would simply combine with another G3P (3 carbon molecule) to continue up gluconeogensis to make glucose (6 carbon molecule).

As far as the oxaloacetate needed for the TCA cycle (Krebs), and therefore is needed for respiration process and utilizing Acetyl CoA,
The oxaloacetate can be made from certain amino acids by deaminating them. So technically you have a source of the oxaloacetate. Also if you were not consuming carbohydrates, the TCA would run fine processing the acetyl CoAs from fatty acids, as well as the various amino acids breakdowns which can lead to aceyl CoA's as well.

As far as what the original post question about ketosis and sugar consumption bringing him out of it, i have some anecdotal thoughts on I'll post later.

[Hannibal]

The oxaloacetate can be made from certain amino acids by deaminating them. So technically you have a source of the oxaloacetate. Also if you were not consuming carbohydrates, the TCA would run fine processing the acetyl CoAs from fatty acids, as well as the various amino acids breakdowns which can lead to aceyl CoA's as well.

Those amino acids which are degraded to oxaloacetate are aspartate and asparagine. I know it.
But it's simplier and quicker to burn FAT using glucose than proteins. The process is quickier - from glucose via glycolysis to puryvate and then to oxaloacetate.

[riy freeman]

I'm not understanding what you're trying to prove... that glucose consumption leads to faster fat metabolism? I'm going to have to disagree. With glucose consumption you wouldn't need to break down fat to create AS many missing TCA/gluconeogensis intermediates. In addition the glycerol would not be used to make glucose via gluneogenesis if you already have a supply of glucose. Fat storages would stay "more" put given glucose presence since that would be used for respiration before fat.

[TrueCarnivore]

Gosu,

So regardless.. fat loss is greater on the lower carb/zc approach than with 30+ carbs a day. Correct?

With glycerol being available for combining G3P, is that enough to serve the processes that can solely rely on glucose? Is the fat-adapted state muscle sparring then? Is it correct to say that once fat-adapted, muscle protein for gluconeogenesis is rarely used?

[mrz]

i say i have to agree with Hannibal.. i just posted a thread.. i do much BETTER with carbs.. i tried zero carb and promptly lost like 5lbs of muscle in 2 weeks.. now i added carbs, and ive gained that much in 2 weeks.

[riy freeman]

"So regardless.. fat loss is greater on the lower carb/zc approach than with 30+ carbs a day. Correct?"

If fat loss is the sole focus then I'm inclined to say yes on a theoretical basis. But like most of the processes total protein (and fat) consumption would have to factor in as well. But also an argument could be made that carbs could provide immediate fuel for high intense activity and therefore raise metabolic rates way higher so your net productive activity could result in more fat being burned. In other words you might feel more strength/power to do whatever exercise for a net burning of more fuel. I'm also still learning about these things so don't take my word as a final say.

"With glycerol being available for combining G3P, is that enough to serve the processes that can solely rely on glucose? Is the fat-adapted state muscle sparring then? Is it correct to say that once fat-adapted, muscle protein for gluconeogenesis is rarely used?"

No way glycerol would be enough to supply the body with all of the glucose needs. The glucose in this case would presumably come from amino acids (protein component of ZC diet). The fat-adapted state is muscle sparing but without adequate protein intake I would still say its still a net loss of muscle.
Once fat-adapted the process of gluconeogenesis HAS to occur still because you will be converting amino acids to glucose. I think the bottom line is if you have adequate protein intake so that your glucose lee\vels can be maintained AND the body has enough protein to maintain muscle. In fasting, there is no protein (or carb/fat) intake so during ketosis the body fat gets "converted" to oxaloacetate and thus travel up the path of gluconeogenesis to make glucose. The body muscle is spared once again as much as possible.