Ketones in urine?

[Guest guest]

When I was pregnant and the doc found Ketones in my urine he was very

upset and told me that whatever I was doing to stop...he said, " you

are not supposed to produce ketones when pregnant! " He didn't say

why...the appointment previous to that one he had told me to stop

gaining weight so I cut out all bread and that's what I was doing

different.

That was many years ago...

Sandy

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Thanks so much for your analysis and thoughts. My goal is to get

about 100 grams of protein in a day, but I don't count calories. I'm

with you on the fruit--I ate more than usual that morning. Also, the

" lunch " was actually only half of my daytime food. I usually snack

throughout the afternoon on raw egg yolks, bone broth, brewer's yeast,

hummus and carrots, almond butter, and raw milk. Dinner always

includes a big portion of meat and some veggies. I do think I could

eat more meat in general, but I have source and budget issues, so I'm

doing the best that I can right now.

I'm thinking that adding some homemade sausage patties to breakfast

would be a great idea....perhaps lamb...mmmmm.

>

> More importantly, it seems to me you're just not eating nearly enough

> protein if these two meals are representative. 18% protein at breakfast

> and 17% at lunch (and that based on a generous estimate of how much steak

> was in your salad, meaning the actual numbers might be a lot lower!) might

> be OK for a woman in everyday life whose not doing anything much in the way

> of physical training, but when pregnant? Pregnancy certainly isn't my area

> of expertise, but I'd expect that a pregnant woman needs a lot more protein

> than you seem to be getting, so at the very least I'd strongly encourage

> you to look into the issue. I also wonder whether you're eating enough

> calories period. If dinner is on the order of breakfast and lunch, you

> might be eating a total of 2400 calories for the day. I don't remember

> exactly how tall you are, but I don't remember you being short, so while

> that might be a touch high under normal (non-pregnant) circumstances, it

> seems to me like it might be low when you're eating for two. Or maybe I'm

> completely wrong on that. Other people could doubtless give you better

> information on that subject, and maybe your appetite is adequate to the

> task of regulating your food intake, and maybe you're eating a bigger

> dinner. Just food for thought.

>

> If nothing else, I'd really consider replacing some of the fruit with meat,

> though. I seriously doubt you're getting enough protein unless you're

> eating heaps o' meat at dinner.

>

> If you're worried about the ketones -- and I doubt there's cause for worry

> -- test your blood sugar throughout the day to see if there's anything

> hinky going on.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

One reason not to burn fat while pregnant is what's stored in it if you've been

eating conventionally and having the usual American chemical exposures.

One reason ketone formation would be considered scary is that on the diet

usually prescribed, carbs would be fat-sparing and ketones would be a signal

that metabolism is off.

[Guest guest]

,

>

> Is there a reason for the 100g figure?

Adelle recommends 75-90g for pg. (slightly more during

lactation) and Dr. Brewer (www.blueribbonbaby.org) recommends

80-100g/day. I think these figures are based on what it takes to

prevent toxemia. WAP doesn't say anything about protein grams, but

getting 100g in feels like A LOT to me. I actually think I'm getting

more than 100 on most days; I have meant to track my macronutrients

and now that Miss b. has alerted me to easy-breezy " Fit Day " site, I'm

going to do just that. It's already obvious to me that I'm getting

too much mono. sats. and need to get more butter/vco/ruminant fat in

me.

> Perhaps pregnancy changes the rules, but snacking through the day is never

> a good idea under any other condition, and if your own metabolism is in any

> way imprinting on your baby's, you could be slightly predisposing your kid

> to insulin/leptin metabolism problems even though most of those foods are

> nutritious and healthy. Unless there are known reasons for snacking during

> pregnancy, I'd really recommend following the leptin meal timing rules.

Yikes! Okay, see, there this little problem called the uterus. It's

about the size of a basketball right now (started at fist-size) and

will grow as big a a watermelon (!!!!!) So as you can imagine,

everything gets squished, including my stomach. Not to mention that

" sweet pea " is also a champion kick-boxer and will often compromise my

organs in fun and interesting ways. So, long story short, I feel

awful if I eat too much all at once. I've never thrown up, but I hate

feeling overfull.

I know it's been discussed, but can you give me the

nutshell-pregnancy-brain version of " leptin meal timing rules " ?

>

> Yeah, that's always a problem for the non-rich. Do you have a separate

> freezer? Is there any way you can order cheaper meats in bulk?

Yes, I do. so no excuses, right? I just hate paying for shipping and

not buying local (esp. with our current gas crisis....) There are

some grassfed operations up north where my parents live and I'll be

there in Oct. Maybe I can swing something then. My nutrition when I

start nursing will be at least as important as it is now, if not more.

ps I watched Dersu Uzala last night and thought it was stunning.

Munzuk's performance was inspired and incredibly moving. Thanks for

the rec!

[Guest guest]

The problem is gestational diabetes and the " easiest " way to test

for gestational diabetes is by ketones in the urine. Gestational

diabetes is a disaster for both mother and child and can lead to

death of one or both.

Connie H.

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Sandy-

>

> >When I was pregnant and the doc found Ketones in my urine he was

very

> >upset and told me that whatever I was doing to stop...he

said, " you

> >are not supposed to produce ketones when pregnant! " He didn't say

> >why...the appointment previous to that one he had told me to stop

> >gaining weight so I cut out all bread and that's what I was doing

> >different.

> >

> >That was many years ago...

>

> I'm open to any kind of explanation of why ketones would be bad,

but the

> general perception that they're bad (at any time) is because

you're not

> " supposed " to burn fat, you're " supposed " to burn sugar, and

ketones also

> appear in diabetics, meaning that ketone production is therefore

regarded

> as a disaster. Atkins talked at length about this, and about why

what he

> called " benign dietary ketosis " , as opposed to diabetic

ketoacidosis, is a

> great thing.

>

> Admittedly he didn't discuss pregnancy (that I can recall) but I

not only

> can't imagine why fat burning would be bad during pregnancy, I can

imagine

> why it might be good, and none of Price's healthy natives (to my

> recollection) made any kind of point of eating more carbs during

> pregnancy. The focus always seemed to be on fats, fat-soluble

nutrients

> and protein.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Connie-

>The problem is gestational diabetes and the " easiest " way to test

>for gestational diabetes is by ketones in the urine. Gestational

>diabetes is a disaster for both mother and child and can lead to

>death of one or both.

It sounds, though, like this comes from the usual assumption that ketones

in urine = diabetes. Ketones in urine can actually be a perfectly good

thing. Whether that's true during pregnancy I don't actually know, as I've

said, but I can't imagine why fat-burning should abruptly shut off because

of pregnancy.

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/22/05, Connie Hampton <connie@...> wrote:

> The problem is gestational diabetes and the " easiest " way to test

> for gestational diabetes is by ketones in the urine. Gestational

> diabetes is a disaster for both mother and child and can lead to

> death of one or both.

" When ketones first came to the attention of physicians in the latter

part of the 19th century, it was because they were found in abundance

in the urine of patients in diabetic coma. It soon became evident

that a vast overproduction of ketones in the body was largely

respponsible for the devastating clinical manifestations of waht is

now called diabetic ketoacidosis. Negative views about ketones

prevailed and the nature of the relationship between impaired glucose

utilization and ketone body metabolism continued to be misunderstood

for nearly a half century. In the words of s and Van Slyke, 'The

formatiojn of beta-hydroxybutyric and acetoacetic acids instead of

[carbond dioxide and water] was believed to denote incomplete

combustion of fat. It was therefore deduced that complete combustion

of fat required simultaneous oxidation of carbohydrrate, an opinion

vividly expressed by Naunyn in the aphorism, 'Fats burn in the flame

of carbohydrate' . . . As analytical techniques have gained in

precision and sensitivity, ketone bodies have proved to be normal

components of blood, not products that appear only when the metabolism

of carbohydrate is disordered.' " -- VanItallie and Nufert, " Ketones:

Metabolism's Ugly Duckling, " _Nutrition Reviews_ (2003) 327-341.

Ketones in the urine might be an " easy " test for diabetes, but

obviously it's a horribly inaccurate one.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

-

>Adelle recommends 75-90g for pg. (slightly more during

>lactation) and Dr. Brewer (www.blueribbonbaby.org) recommends

>80-100g/day. I think these figures are based on what it takes to

>prevent toxemia.

Huh, well, if that's what they say... except isn't toxemia a

protein-deficiency disease? And is 75-100g roughly the minimum dose

required to prevent it, or a little more than the minimum dose? If so,

isn't that analogous to establishing the RDA based on the minimum amount of

a nutrient required to prevent overt deficiency disease? I don't know --

I'm just spitballing.

>I have meant to track my macronutrients

>and now that Miss b. has alerted me to easy-breezy " Fit Day " site, I'm

>going to do just that.

Yeah, that should be very useful. I'll have to check it out myself when it

comes time to tabulate dinner.

>So as you can imagine,

>everything gets squished, including my stomach. Not to mention that

> " sweet pea " is also a champion kick-boxer and will often compromise my

>organs in fun and interesting ways. So, long story short, I feel

>awful if I eat too much all at once. I've never thrown up, but I hate

>feeling overfull.

Well, that's a sticky one, then.

>I know it's been discussed, but can you give me the

>nutshell-pregnancy-brain version of " leptin meal timing rules " ?

There's no pregnancy component to what I've researched, but the general

idea is that snacking and too-frequent eating induces excess production of

insulin and leptin which leads to resistance to both hormones, causing all

sorts of delightful metabolic problems. The meal timing rules based on

this issue as set forth by s in _Mastering Leptin_ are to leave a

minimum of 5-6 hours between meals and at least 11-12 hours between dinner

and breakfast, with absolutely no snacking whatsoever.

I don't know how much info is out there on how the mother's hormonal status

affects her infant, but I'd expect that you'd want everything in the best

possible order, since the intrauterine environment unquestionably affects

the child's development.

But if you can't eat enough at once to follow that timing scheme, I'd

expect not snacking (and leaving the fetus malnourished) would be even worse.

>I just hate paying for shipping and

>not buying local (esp. with our current gas crisis....)

Yeah, no kidding. I'm glad my freezer is completely full, but I'm frankly

nervous about dipping into it now.

>ps I watched Dersu Uzala last night and thought it was stunning.

>Munzuk's performance was inspired and incredibly moving. Thanks for

>the rec!

Glad you liked it! It really is a beautiful film, and I wish Criterion or

someone would do a full-scale restoration of the film elements.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>It was therefore deduced that complete combustion

>of fat required simultaneous oxidation of carbohydrrate, an opinion

>vividly expressed by Naunyn in the aphorism, 'Fats burn in the flame

>of carbohydrate' . . .

Glad to hear that infernal aphorism has finally been put to rest, though of

course that doesn't prevent legions of medical establishment types from

trotting out its revenant, completely oblivious to the sight and smell of

putrefaction.

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> It sounds, though, like this comes from the usual assumption that

ketones

> in urine = diabetes. Ketones in urine can actually be a perfectly

good

> thing. Whether that's true during pregnancy I don't actually

know, as I've

> said, but I can't imagine why fat-burning should abruptly shut off

because

> of pregnancy.

>

>

>

>

> -

Yes, that is probably true. I think that the OB/GYNs just feel

responsible to get a normally healthy baby born, after which they

hand them off to the pediatrician. It is a rapidly moving world -

that of the OB - up late nights, emergency C-Sections, etc. I don't

think that there are many who even think to question the basic

assumptions about nutrition and ketones and whether ketones =

diabetes. But some are pretty good at getting stuck babies out.

Not that all are... But I would never go to an OB/GYN for anything

having to do with nutrition - at one point they were telling moms

not to gain more than 15 pounds - and guess what - underweight

babies who were more likely to be sick or way too early or

whatever. Gestational diabetes = abnormally large babies who may

have diabetes type I at birth or shortly there after.

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

On 9/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >It was therefore deduced that complete combustion

> >of fat required simultaneous oxidation of carbohydrrate, an opinion

> >vividly expressed by Naunyn in the aphorism, 'Fats burn in the flame

> >of carbohydrate' . . .

>

> Glad to hear that infernal aphorism has finally been put to rest, though of

> course that doesn't prevent legions of medical establishment types from

> trotting out its revenant, completely oblivious to the sight and smell of

> putrefaction.

That was an internal quote from the 2003 review. It was " finally " put

to rest in 1946.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>That was an internal quote from the 2003 review. It was " finally " put

>to rest in 1946.

Pretty impressive, then, people constantly quoting 59-years-dead

nonsense. Sheesh.

-