Quote (SKCRaynor @ Oct 10 2012 07:35pm)
This should help:
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=21269614&f=60&p=365993938Fat/Cholesterol Explained
For further insight - the basis of keto is that your body normally uses glycogen/glucose for fuel (aka sugar) and thus carbohydrates. The body stores excess glycogen in the liver and anything further after surplus is reached gets stored as fat. In order to burn fat in "normal" mode, you must burn glycogen first. This is typically very difficult for most people. Keto depletes your body of sugar/glycogen and thus creates ketones which use fat as the primary energy source, and not glucose. As a result, your body's own natural store of fat gets burned through regular activity as the direct source of energy, and food containing fat achieves the same effect. With regard to negative effects of fat, the key is to avoid "bad" fats - IE saturated and trans fats, and eat a good amount of unsaturated fats (particularly omega 3, 6, and 9). The goal is to get at least 2g of unsaturated fats to every 1g of saturated fats. However, a 3:1 or better ratio is OPTIMAL. These high concentrations of fat will only fuel your body, and have NOTHING to do with gaining fat. People do not gain fat by eating fat - that was a "false fact" of the 1980s. Eating mass calories and high glycemic items with lack of exercise is what causes fat.
Assuming a caloric deficit is achieved, ketosis is achieved, and one also exercises -
fat loss is multiplied, blood sugar is regulated, energy level is higher than with a normal diet, and in some cases, certain medical maladies rectify themselves.
Keto is a fantastic thing to cycle once a year.
i feel that you're missing a piece which has always kept me confused. where's the magical explanation for why it burns more fat than normal?
i tend to be more of a numbers person, so here's an example:
suppose your body needs 100 Cals of energy right now (running, regulate temperature, etc)
option 1: you consumed 100 Cals worth of carbs. your body burns it all and doesn't touch your fat. net change in body fat: 0
option 2: you consume 0 Cals worth of carbs and 100 Cals of fat. your body burns 100 Cals of fat off your body, then after digestion and such is done the 100 Cals worth of fat you ate goes back in your body. net change in body fat: 0
both cases, to my layman eyes, sees no net change in body fat. the only explanation i can think of is that the cost to break down sugar into a useable form of energy is much smaller than the cost to break down fat into useable energy. so for example, in order to use 100 Cals worth of carbs, it might expend 1 Cal of energy to convert the carbs into something useful, whereas to use 100 Cals of fat, your body might expend an additional 10 Cals to convert the fat into something useful. if this is the case, do you know a number for how much energy is required to break it down? if it's not the case, can you explain the flaw in my example?