Entering Ketosis

[jennypenny]

Update ... I started the lacto-ovo vegetarian version of low carb on 8/21, including supplements. It was a huge fail. This week's blood work shows that my B9 and B12 have plummeted (like barely registering) and my anemia is worse than ever. Looking back, I think the change was almost immediate. My mood and energy levels tanked and brain fog set in. Unfortunately, I responded in my normal 'ignore it and keep going' fashion, so as I felt worse and worse I pushed harder and harder to power through, making the situation worse.

I have some mitigating factors so I can't blame all of the B9/12 deficiency on the diet. That said, my body clearly functions best on a meat-based, low-carb, paleo-ish diet that includes dairy. I'm not happy. I'm a vegetarian at heart and I was trying to give up meat for environmental and resilience reasons as well.

[BRUTE]

... vegetarian .. anemia is worse than ever..

que surprise. red meat. iron. no anemia.

[slsdly]

@jennypenny, I'm really surprised about B12! Were your levels low to begin with? My understanding (speaking as a non-vegan/non-vegetarian) is that new vegans can go years without any supplements before noticing problems, because most people have decent reserves of it.

[J_]

@Jennypenny: DW and I eat vegatarian + some fish + some eggs for a very long time (more than 18 Y), but it recently appeared that we need to supplement B12.
Some time after taking B12 supplement (1,000 mcg) the energy levels rose to good.
Literature: Could it be B12? : an epidemic of misdiagnoses Sally M. Pacholok & Jeffrey J. Stuart

[jennypenny]

Yes, I have celiac/coeliac so I have problems with malabsorption anyway. I'm just amazed at how fast the levels dropped (they obviously watch them carefully). It must have to do with what I'm eating and how well I digest it and not just how much folate etc is in each item.

[jennypenny]

Study reports use of nutritional ketosis with mobile app intervention could reverse Type 2 diabetes

A keto-type diet isn't for everyone, but there's no question that it's the best for certain groups. My GI doctor recommended it to me and said he recommends this diet to most of his patients. He said it works really well with NAFLD (which he said is exploding and 'the next big thing after metabolic syndrome'). My ob/gyn recommends this diet to post-menopausal women as well, albeit with higher fruit consumption for the fiber content and to satisfy the increased sweet cravings.

My update: I never switched back to this diet and got bad news (again) from the doctor yesterday. Evaluating my options. A meat-based diet is not resilient (financially or environmentally) and it's not my preference personally, yet my body is not happy on a vegetarian diet.

[BRUTE]

Evaluating my options. A meat-based diet is not resilient (financially or environmentally) and it's not my preference personally, yet my body is not happy on a vegetarian diet.

raising beef is actually extremely resilient and eco friendly, the vegetarian propaganda is bullcrap (<-- bovine pun). a cow needs a lot of land and some water, but practically zero supervision. if jennypenny hasn't yet checked it out, Joel Salatin writes good stuff about this. factory farming is environmentally not resilient. regular farming is.

financially? $3 per pound of ground beef isn't that much, and that's not even a deal. one pound has 800-1,200kcal, depending on fat content. how many pounds does jennypenny need to eat per day? 2? 3?

[ducknalddon]

raising beef is actually extremely resilient and eco friendly

You should fix this article then.

[BRUTE]

sounds like a ton of work

[fips]

"Animal products, both meat and dairy, in general require more resources and cause higher emissions than plant-based alternatives."
From the UNEP report "Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production".

Sorry, back to Ketosis.

[BRUTE]

http://www.lierrekeith.com/book-ex_the- ... n-myth.php

[Bankai]

http://www.lierrekeith.com/book-ex_the- ... n-myth.php

Carnist propaganda strikes again.

[daylen]

sounds like a ton of work

Confirmation bias much?

[BRUTE]

laziness bias

[jacob]

Always pour acid into water. Never the other way around.

Now why is that since it's technically the same molecules meeting?

[Toska2]

Always pour acid into water. Never the other way around.

Now why is that since it's technically the same molecules meeting?

Combining the two creates heat. Acid ( a viscous liquid ) sinks into water and that heat is readily absorbed by the water above. The other way around the water will sit on top, absorb the heat and rapidly boil/steam out the container. It is possible to add acid to water fast enough to boil but its not "volcanic". I worked with lab grade sulfuric and hydrochloric acid @ ~90%. I used 100 ml pipets instead of 100 ml graduated cylinders to slow down the mixing.

[jacob]

Now ponder this metaphor until it sinks in [Always wear cool safety goggles]

[7Wannabe5]

This argument about sustainability of meat consumption doesn't usually take into account the fact that raising livestock is generally a more profitable activity for farmers. It doesn't matter whether you imagine a corn field next to a beef "factory", a mixed lentil/rice/canola field next to a frozen prepared vegetarian meal factory, or wheat and sugar fields next to a gourmet cookie factory, because energy is still cheap, the producer who uses energy (likely petroleum) to take the basic cheap commodity crop further up the chain towards fully prepared high-energy source end-user food product will reap the most profits. If/when energy prices significantly rise, the whole equation will change, but until that very high possibility becomes reality, it is unrealistic to expect farmers or other food producers to take the economic hit for society in general.

IOW, if you truly want to "take the hit" yourself on behalf of future you or future generations, you will choose to make inefficient use of your personal resources in terms of marginal hourly wage, and start paying yourself $5/hour to do something like raise alfalfa in your backyard and meat rabbits in your basement. Any other level of debate is just form of distraction while waiting for the fall, unless you want to gamble on "Elon Musk will save us."

@jacob: I didn't quite get your metaphor.

[fips]

I am not sure. I thought I got Jacob's metaphor (and the pun) but I am not sure I got 7W's argument.

Jacob's metaphor:
I projected the metaphor on the vegetarians/vegans vs. carnist debate.
Just like BRUTE dropping a carnist argument and suddenly vegetarians/vegans rise up (very broadly speaking).
(Or the other way round in different contexts.)
For the pun: I read "Now ponder this metaphor until it sinks in" to be a pun on "acid sinking in water" and "the metaphor sinking in".

7W's argument:
I think I misunderstand you. Are you saying that economic misallocation justifies the consequences?
I agree that it is unfair to let one group of people carry the burden of change, but nevertheless they (more directly) and everyone else (often more indirectly) can work towards that change (for correcting economic misallocation in politics see Richard Thaler's "Nudge").

[7Wannabe5]

Recent study showing that optimal intake for increasing muscle mass over age 40 is 1.6g protein/lb of body weight. Form of protein made no difference.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/well ... er-40.html

Of course, overall health value of increasing muscle mass might be relative to total body weight, so senior citizen who is currently skinny-weak would derive most benefit from increased protein intake, whereas middle-aged female who already "looks more like a chubby teenage girl than most women her age" (sigh)might derive more benefit from simple decrease of total simple carbohydrate calorie intake. The super-efficiency of sugar cane does not come close to covering the inefficiencies in the cost of modern medicine.

7W's argument:
I think I misunderstand you. Are you saying that economic misallocation justifies the consequences?
I agree that it is unfair to let one group of people carry the burden of change, but nevertheless they (more directly) and everyone else (often more indirectly) can work towards that change (for correcting economic misallocation in politics see Richard Thaler's "Nudge").

I was attempting to communicate something about reality, not justice. Within the energy/food/water nexus, sustainability has to do with resources/systems outside of human control (petroleum reserves/weather) and viability has to do with resources within human control (tractor production/laws.) Given a free market economy, a solution that requires one set of players in the economy to sacrifice (beyond immediate family) for the good of others will likely fail because not viable, even if it is theoretically sustainable. Of course, it is pretty laughable to describe the current agricultural system in the U.S. as anything resembling a free market, so...?