In addition to increasing ATP production while reducing oxygen consumption, ketone body metabolism can also reduce production of damaging free radicals Veech RL Veech RL Masuda R et al. The semiquinone of Q, the half reduced form, spontaneously reacts with oxygen and is the major source of mitochondrial free radical generation Veech RL Chance B et al. Oxidation of the Q couple reduces the amount of the semiquinone form thus decreasing superoxide productionVeech RL. Since the cytosolic free NADP+/NADPH concentration couple is in near equilibrium with the glutathione couple, ketone body metabolism will increase the reduced form of glutathione thus facilitating destruction of hydrogen peroxide Veech RL. The reduction of free radicals through ketone body metabolism will also reduce tissue inflammation provoked by reactive oxygen species. Thus, ketone bodies are not only a more efficient metabolic fuel than glucose, but also possess anti-inflammatory potential.
Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
-
overkees
- Posts: 598
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Fri 05 Aug 2011 14:20
Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
It appears that fat burning is cleaner after all. A very, very interesting article that you really should look into RRM: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/30
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
Interesting.
On the other hand, relying on fats for the bulk makes the blood more acidic, because ketone bodies are acidic.
The acid odour that you can smell from people who fast, or heavily rely on fats, is generally from acetone.
Thats because when liver glycogen stores are empty, ketogenesis creates ketone bodies,
and acetoacetate and β-hydroxybutyrate (ketone bodies) are used for energy.
And the carboxylation of acetoacetate (to render energy) results in acetone,
which is used for energy and excreted in urine and breath. (which you can smell)
Ketone bodies make the blood more acidic, and your body has to compensate for that (to maintain the proper pH).
There are 2 ways to (simultaneously) compensate for this acidification. If those measures A) and B) are inadequate, it may lead to acidosis.
A) respiratory compensation
B) renal compensation
A) The lungs regulate carbon dioxide concentrations. Bicarbonate is required to buffer the increased acidity.
The body creates more bicarbonate from carbon-dioxide and water,
forming carbonic acid (H2CO3) and subsequently hydrogen ions (H+) and bicarbonate (HCO3-).
For this the hydrogen needs to be absorbed by tissue protein and in your bones.
And to be able to maintain this (when ketone bodies are consistently used for energy), you need to breath more,
to be able to vary the amount of CO2 in the blood, and more CO2 and excess acid can be exhaled.
B) The kidney increases the excretion of dihydrogen phosphate and ammonium ions,
and reabsorb bicarbonate from urine; generating bicarbonate in the process while clearing acids.
On the other hand, relying on fats for the bulk makes the blood more acidic, because ketone bodies are acidic.
The acid odour that you can smell from people who fast, or heavily rely on fats, is generally from acetone.
Thats because when liver glycogen stores are empty, ketogenesis creates ketone bodies,
and acetoacetate and β-hydroxybutyrate (ketone bodies) are used for energy.
And the carboxylation of acetoacetate (to render energy) results in acetone,
which is used for energy and excreted in urine and breath. (which you can smell)
Ketone bodies make the blood more acidic, and your body has to compensate for that (to maintain the proper pH).
There are 2 ways to (simultaneously) compensate for this acidification. If those measures A) and B) are inadequate, it may lead to acidosis.
A) respiratory compensation
B) renal compensation
A) The lungs regulate carbon dioxide concentrations. Bicarbonate is required to buffer the increased acidity.
The body creates more bicarbonate from carbon-dioxide and water,
forming carbonic acid (H2CO3) and subsequently hydrogen ions (H+) and bicarbonate (HCO3-).
For this the hydrogen needs to be absorbed by tissue protein and in your bones.
And to be able to maintain this (when ketone bodies are consistently used for energy), you need to breath more,
to be able to vary the amount of CO2 in the blood, and more CO2 and excess acid can be exhaled.
B) The kidney increases the excretion of dihydrogen phosphate and ammonium ions,
and reabsorb bicarbonate from urine; generating bicarbonate in the process while clearing acids.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
Therefore the normalization of breathing is so important (for correct CO2) and hence the alkalizing diets are so important.
And btw sugar works very acidifying in the body aswell according to all the alkaline diets. I haven't found out how this happens exactly.But I will look into it soon.
Look, if your breathing is out of whack you will start relying on alkalic buffers in the bones and such. Therefore people who are in bad health get such great results by adding more greens and other alkalizing stuff to replenish these buffers. However, increasing your CO2 is the real solution and hence buteyko is the ultimate solution.
And besides, I haven't noticed a fool smelling urine yet. Except for in the morning maybe.
At least my sensitive teeth are restoring finally. With the wai-keto diet that is. (And adding a little baking soda: Na2HCO3 to OJ that is)
And btw sugar works very acidifying in the body aswell according to all the alkaline diets. I haven't found out how this happens exactly.But I will look into it soon.
Look, if your breathing is out of whack you will start relying on alkalic buffers in the bones and such. Therefore people who are in bad health get such great results by adding more greens and other alkalizing stuff to replenish these buffers. However, increasing your CO2 is the real solution and hence buteyko is the ultimate solution.
And besides, I haven't noticed a fool smelling urine yet. Except for in the morning maybe.
At least my sensitive teeth are restoring finally. With the wai-keto diet that is. (And adding a little baking soda: Na2HCO3 to OJ that is)
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
A high carbs diet cannot cause acidosis.
A diet relying on fats can. Your body has to compensate for a diet like that.
When your breath is foul, you may be the last one to notice.
A diet relying on fats can. Your body has to compensate for a diet like that.
It would be bad for you if your kidneys cannot excrete the acetone and other acids from ketone bodies.overkees wrote:I haven't noticed a fool smelling urine yet. Except for in the morning maybe.
When your breath is foul, you may be the last one to notice.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
My girlfriend will tell me immediately 
And you are assuming alot of things again. Like that I my body needs to get rid off excessive ketone bodies. This is not always the case and mostly is the case for people with compromised health situations or in the transition phase.
And you are assuming alot of things again. Like that I my body needs to get rid off excessive ketone bodies. This is not always the case and mostly is the case for people with compromised health situations or in the transition phase.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
It's not about removing excessive ketone bodies, but acetone I think, which results from non-enzymatic break down of acetoacetate. Although as far as I know, after a certain period of adaptation, most acetoacetate coming from the liver is first converted to beta-hydroxybutyrate in the muscles, and then it's returned back to circulation for use as energy, e.g. by the brain.overkees wrote:Like that I my body needs to get rid off excessive ketone bodies.
Excessive ketone bodies can become problem mainly when exercising, as the liver overcompensates in ketone production and levels in the blood often rise above the normal range.
But anyway overkees, I doubt you're in what's considered full ketosis, as you're eating above 100g carbs.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
The part that you initially posted is from an article that says this about the ketogenic diet:
He says that the ketogenic diet is actually designed to disrupt tumor metabolism.
The quoted part contains the following references (which i copy pasted into your post).
1) Veech RL: "The effects of ketone body metabolism suggests that mild ketosis may offer therapeutic potential in a variety of different common and rare disease states. ... Current ketogenic diets are all characterized by elevations of free fatty acids, which may lead to metabolic inefficiency by activation of the PPAR system and its associated uncoupling mitochondrial uncoupling proteins. New diets comprised of ketone bodies themselves or their esters may obviate this present difficulty."
2) Veech RL
The initial link is dead, and in Webcitation.org there is only an agenda.
3) Masuda R et al
Here it is written that if you induce hypoxia in rats, adding D-beta-hydroxybutyrate helps to prevent / reverse hypoxia-induced damage.
They conclude that: "These findings indicate that ketone bodies may be a candidate for widening the therapeutic window before thrombolytic therapy and at the same time decreasing apoptotic damage in the ischemic penumbra."
4) Chance B et al
No text available here.
Can you give us something that actually supports the notion that a diet primarily based on fats is better for healthy people,
compared to a carb based diet?
The author does not advocate this therapy as an alternative for a normal diet in healthy people, for a short or longer period of time."These findings suggest that the Ketogenic Diet would be an effective multifactorial diet therapy for malignant brain cancer and should be considered as an alternative therapeutic option."
He says that the ketogenic diet is actually designed to disrupt tumor metabolism.
The quoted part contains the following references (which i copy pasted into your post).
1) Veech RL: "The effects of ketone body metabolism suggests that mild ketosis may offer therapeutic potential in a variety of different common and rare disease states. ... Current ketogenic diets are all characterized by elevations of free fatty acids, which may lead to metabolic inefficiency by activation of the PPAR system and its associated uncoupling mitochondrial uncoupling proteins. New diets comprised of ketone bodies themselves or their esters may obviate this present difficulty."
2) Veech RL
The initial link is dead, and in Webcitation.org there is only an agenda.
3) Masuda R et al
Here it is written that if you induce hypoxia in rats, adding D-beta-hydroxybutyrate helps to prevent / reverse hypoxia-induced damage.
They conclude that: "These findings indicate that ketone bodies may be a candidate for widening the therapeutic window before thrombolytic therapy and at the same time decreasing apoptotic damage in the ischemic penumbra."
4) Chance B et al
No text available here.
Can you give us something that actually supports the notion that a diet primarily based on fats is better for healthy people,
compared to a carb based diet?
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
You can get the full text at http://physrev.physiology.org/content/59/3/527.longRRM wrote: 4) Chance B et al
No text available here.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
Ah, cool. Thanks
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
Can anyone find anything in this text that actually supports the notion that a diet based on burning ketone bodies is less of a burden on our body than a diet based on predominantly burning simple sugars?
Something comparative?
Something comparative?
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
Sometime ago I was curious to get a more concrete answer to that question too, but didn't really come to anything satisfactory. All you can say from the research is that ketogenic diet compared to the typical high carb diets (3 meals a day) would be a better solution in certain conditions like diabetes 2/insulin insensitivity, epileptic seizures, and for weight loss.
While it does free up the insulin system so it will somewhat improve sensitivity to insulin, it is obviously less optimal in other aspects
- digestion is more involved then it is in the case of simple sugars, which more or less go straight to the blood, so
- it puts strain on lipase production in the pancreas and bile acid in the liver
- converting the digested fat to ketone bodies is necessary, whereas glucose is used as is
- further converting certain ketone bodies (acetoacetate) into other type (beta-hydruxybutyrate)
- in the end both ketone bodies and glucose enter the same respiration cycle where they are burned for energy, so at least in this step there's not much difference (not completely sure about this though)
So I'm not sure how's fat burning via converting to ketone bodies is cleaner as it obviously takes many more steps than glucose burning.
Furthermore, it is impossible to figure out what is the actual preference of the body - ketone burning, or glucose burning. On one hand you could say that glucose is preferred because you need to really stay away from glucose for 2-3 weeks to adapt to fat burning, i.e. you have to kinda force it. On the other hand you could say that regularly ketone bodies are not produced much simply because there's enough glucose in the blood. The glucose has to be cleared in some way, whether burned or converted to fat and stored, so it doesn't make sense to produce ketones.
As for burning pure fatty acids (not ketone bodies).. muscles burn primarily fat when in rest and up to 50-60% of VO2 max (walking or so), and they are probably the largest expenditor of energy in the body. So you could say fatty acid burning is preferred over glucose and so perhaps cleaner, as long as it's possible to use them, as their oxidation is slower than that of glucose. But I think you can't influence this much with your diet anyway so it's not really relevant.
While it does free up the insulin system so it will somewhat improve sensitivity to insulin, it is obviously less optimal in other aspects
- digestion is more involved then it is in the case of simple sugars, which more or less go straight to the blood, so
- it puts strain on lipase production in the pancreas and bile acid in the liver
- converting the digested fat to ketone bodies is necessary, whereas glucose is used as is
- further converting certain ketone bodies (acetoacetate) into other type (beta-hydruxybutyrate)
- in the end both ketone bodies and glucose enter the same respiration cycle where they are burned for energy, so at least in this step there's not much difference (not completely sure about this though)
So I'm not sure how's fat burning via converting to ketone bodies is cleaner as it obviously takes many more steps than glucose burning.
Furthermore, it is impossible to figure out what is the actual preference of the body - ketone burning, or glucose burning. On one hand you could say that glucose is preferred because you need to really stay away from glucose for 2-3 weeks to adapt to fat burning, i.e. you have to kinda force it. On the other hand you could say that regularly ketone bodies are not produced much simply because there's enough glucose in the blood. The glucose has to be cleared in some way, whether burned or converted to fat and stored, so it doesn't make sense to produce ketones.
As for burning pure fatty acids (not ketone bodies).. muscles burn primarily fat when in rest and up to 50-60% of VO2 max (walking or so), and they are probably the largest expenditor of energy in the body. So you could say fatty acid burning is preferred over glucose and so perhaps cleaner, as long as it's possible to use them, as their oxidation is slower than that of glucose. But I think you can't influence this much with your diet anyway so it's not really relevant.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
What I can say is that I feel alot better on a high fat diet, although I do +30 minutes of low intensity running and +30 minutes of normal intensity cycling everyday.
The fact that I was so curious about is why I used to get those headaches when I fasted for a longer period of time but don't have them anymore? Something must be working better is the conclusion then, right?
I also think now that it isn't about ketosis is better than glucose burning. But more of being not dependable on glucose, because in nature it wasn't always available and we would spend alot more time burning fat instead of glycogen. Therefore, provided that we eat enough nutrients, that spending some time fasting would be a very healthy practice.
The fact that I was so curious about is why I used to get those headaches when I fasted for a longer period of time but don't have them anymore? Something must be working better is the conclusion then, right?
I also think now that it isn't about ketosis is better than glucose burning. But more of being not dependable on glucose, because in nature it wasn't always available and we would spend alot more time burning fat instead of glycogen. Therefore, provided that we eat enough nutrients, that spending some time fasting would be a very healthy practice.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
I think we can aggree on a conclusion, that it's healthier to undereat glucose than to overeat it, but healthiest is to eat just exactly as much as you need.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
But your body can adapt to that. So how much do you need? If you eat a lot of sugar, your body will use less fat. If you eat only little sugar, your body will use much more fat.
And there still is the fact that I feel very very good on pure ketosis. It was one of the best feelings I ever had. So peaceful, super focus and serene. Since I had this I want it again, but eating a little glucose prevents me from achieving the state already.
And there still is the fact that I feel very very good on pure ketosis. It was one of the best feelings I ever had. So peaceful, super focus and serene. Since I had this I want it again, but eating a little glucose prevents me from achieving the state already.
Re: Fat for energy VS glucose for energy
Phew, there are so many possible answers to this question...overkees wrote:The fact that I was so curious about is why I used to get those headaches when I fasted for a longer period of time but don't have them anymore?
It might have been an allergic reaction to something, or amines from fish/eggs. Just guessing.Something must be working better is the conclusion then, right?
Dietary fat? I dont think so, as glucose is more readily available in nature than fat.But more of being not dependable on glucose, because in nature it wasn't always available and we would spend alot more time burning fat instead of glycogen.
Adipose fat? We are burning that 24/7, so sure.
You will always remain dependable on glucose though.
Therefore? Thats not a conclusion that you can draw from this.Therefore, provided that we eat enough nutrients, that spending some time fasting would be a very healthy practice.
Maybe from studies about intermitted fasting.
That may have been the survival mode talking...overkees wrote:It was one of the best feelings I ever had. So peaceful, super focus and serene.