Re: Ketosis and *protein* consumption

[Guest guest]

Chris

>

>I was just scanning the review. There is a section on how ketones are

>*more efficient* energy than other sources, whereas I thought that

>ketones are less efficient, but haven't read it yet. I'll post more

>if there's anything else interesting.

>

Please do, I am interested.

Deanna

who failed to mention sleep is way better sans caffeine too

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Chris

>

> >

> >I was just scanning the review. There is a section on how ketones are

> >*more efficient* energy than other sources, whereas I thought that

> >ketones are less efficient, but haven't read it yet. I'll post more

> >if there's anything else interesting.

> >

> Please do, I am interested.

Well, first let me say that I think that the concept of " energy " might

be very much less well understood than we tend to think it is.

According to Gilbert Ling, who is the founder of the

association-induction hypothesis, which, despite being widely rejected

or ignored, was the inspiration for the MRI, which has been a

universally recognized successful instrument of analysis, there was a

study that disputed the concept of the high-energy phosphate bond. He

claims that ATP isn't actually a source of cellular energy, but is

rather a fuel in the sense of driving conformation changes. He cites

a study that found that the initial observation of the bonding energy

of the terminal phosphate on ATP does NOT have the energy attributed

to it, which is part of his very serious disputation of the

*existence* of the sodium-potassium pump. You really have to read his

book, but he does have a .pdf article on the sodium-potassium pump on

his site, www.gilbertling.org. According to Ling, this study was

never disputed, but was simply ignored because the original and faulty

findings about the terminal phosphate bonding energy simply HAD to be

true in order for the sodium-potassium pump to have the energy to work

(which, according to Ling, it can't possibly have even if the

conventional wisdom about ATP were true), and the Na-K pump HAD to be

true because, at the time, there was no other explanation for how the

cell maintained differentials accross the membrane.

So what does that have to do with this article? Well, nothing really,

except that I've had a few glasses of wine.

....And also that I'm not really sure how to piece together the many

ways to interpret energy dynamics in a cell.

In any case, here's a summary of that section:

-- In the 1940s, it was demonstrated that ketones decrease the oxygen

consumption of sperm despite increasing their motility, relative to

other sources of energy.

-- Rat hearts perfused with ketones + glucose rather than glucose

increase hydraulic work by 25% despite a significant decrease in

oxygen consumption.

-- For some reason I'm not grasping from the review,

beta-ketoglutarate (BHB) (a primary ketone) increases the potential

across the mitochondrial membrane and thereby the energy of the K+

gradient, which increases energy production.

-- Food-deprived obese people, who have much higher levels of ketones

have decreased blood flow and oxygen consumption to brain. This could

be interpreted in different ways, but one possible interpretation is a

decreased oxygen demand for equivalent or even greater energy, which

is consistent with the findings above.

Anyway, I'm not sure " efficiency " is being used the same way. Ketones

might be used more efficiently in terms of oxygen demand, but that

doesn't necessarily mean they aren't used much *less* efficiently in

terms of units of energy per gram of original substrate (fat).

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>Well, first let me say that I think that the concept of " energy " might

>be very much less well understood than we tend to think it is.

>According to Gilbert Ling, who is the founder of the

>association-induction hypothesis, which, despite being widely rejected

>or ignored, was the inspiration for the MRI, which has been a

>universally recognized successful instrument of analysis, there was a

>study that disputed the concept of the high-energy phosphate bond. He

>claims that ATP isn't actually a source of cellular energy, but is

>rather a fuel in the sense of driving conformation changes. He cites

>a study that found that the initial observation of the bonding energy

>of the terminal phosphate on ATP does NOT have the energy attributed

>to it, which is part of his very serious disputation of the

>*existence* of the sodium-potassium pump. You really have to read his

>book, but he does have a .pdf article on the sodium-potassium pump on

>his site, www.gilbertling.org. According to Ling, this study was

>never disputed, but was simply ignored because the original and faulty

>findings about the terminal phosphate bonding energy simply HAD to be

>true in order for the sodium-potassium pump to have the energy to work

>(which, according to Ling, it can't possibly have even if the

>conventional wisdom about ATP were true), and the Na-K pump HAD to be

>true because, at the time, there was no other explanation for how the

>cell maintained differentials accross the membrane.

>

>

Wow, that's some fascinating stuff. I'll have to look at the pdf file

when my domestic duties are complete. But if he's right, it's a big

world rocker for the biology and fitness communities at least.

>So what does that have to do with this article? Well, nothing really,

>except that I've had a few glasses of wine.

>

>

Tsalright. And you blame me for getting off on tangents, hee hee.

Well, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to send all of this

cellular energy info, I do appreciate it. In particular, the section

summary has some interesting ideas, like:

>-- For some reason I'm not grasping from the review,

>beta-ketoglutarate (BHB) (a primary ketone) increases the potential

>across the mitochondrial membrane and thereby the energy of the K+

>gradient, which increases energy production.

>

Next week when I am less busy, I shall look it over in more detail and

perhaps reply more, as well. I just didn't want you to think I hadn't

cared or looked or something, since I am usually better about replies.

Sorry about your coconuts, btw. It wasn't meant to be, I guess.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 7/31/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Sorry about your coconuts, btw. It wasn't meant to be, I guess.

Well it was a major setback for my sense of purpose. I was almost

developing one.

I am seriously considering a potato-chip fast instead.

I am not sure whether or not my JuiceMan2000 is appropriately equipped.

Thanks,

Chris