Dr. Garth Davis, a gastroenterologist who puts patients into ketosis before and after stomach reduction (weight loss) surgery, says no, he thinks the body does not want to be in ketosis. When we think about this question a little it becomes obvious why this is so...the body only "forces" ketosis when we are quite ill or injured. This can also be called "body initiated fasting", where we eat nothing, and drink only water for some period of time determined by the body. This occurs for example when we are so ill that the body reflexively regurgitates any solid foods we consume. Or when we are so injured we cannot move until we recover sufficiently to find food again. During this period of body initiated fasting, or ketosis, normal energy stores (glycogen) are mostly depleted in 12-16 hours, and completely depleted in a few days. At that point the body goes into an accelerated healing process known as autophagy where the most superfluous tissues begin to be removed from the body. And what are the most superfluous tissues? The pathologic diseased ones. The dysfunctional ones. Autopsies on people who have starved to death show that the most critical tissues, brain, eyes, and the like, are spared right up to the point of death, and there's a logical natural reason for this: if one is close to death from starvation but does survive, when health is regained all critical facilities remain intact. Showing, in only one of so many ways, our body's innate intelligence knows exactly what it's doing. Therapeutic water only fasting, BTW, is not starvation, not even close to it. Starvation does not occur until all fat stores are depleted, whereupon proteins (body structure) begin to be converted to fuel. When there is progression from ketosis to starvation any further lack of caloric intake is no longer therapeutic and becomes dangerous. Fat is consumed for fuel in ketosis because fat is the most plentiful source of stored energy in the body. So pathogenic tissues are removed, new healthy tissues are generated, and fats stored in the body are used as fuel for that process. Glycogen stores are completely depleted in a few days, stored fats in all but the anexoric will provide sufficient energy for the autophagy process to continue for several weeks and even longer. This is a good point to mention that extended water only fasting should not be done without medical supervision. Intermittent water only fasting is usually OK, up to 24 hours, no more than once a week. The problem with finding medical supervision of water fasting is the number of MDs who have any training (much less practical expertise) in fasting supervision is very limited. More and more MDs are beginning to learn of the immense leverage fasting introduces in health recovery as the studies are coming at a rapid clip recently, but it is not common knowledge yet. And it also bears mentioning widespread fasting expertise among MDs may be a long time coming, as far greater revenues (and with much less effort) can be achieved prescribing minimally effective (or even counterproductive) drugs. So does the body want to be in ketosis? Probably not until very ill or injured, when there is a lot of healing to be done, and then the body "forces" the condition of ketosis, rather than being "consciously chosen". In addition, primates (including humans) instinctively chose carbohydrates for foods (when available) over fats. Thus ketosis in not our natural condition, it's the emergency back up survival system. Without which, BTW, we as a species would not still be here...so it is not superfluous, it's just not primary. Consider if you will a thought experiment to illustrate: you're lost in the woods for a week and really hungry. All the sudden you come across a big fruiting apple tree with low hanging ripe apples and chickens on the ground pecking at the fallen apples. Would you pluck and eat the ripe apples hanging from the branches, or catch a chicken first? If you think "chicken", consider the following: you are freaking hungry! It's takes mere seconds to begin eating all the (incredibly delicious) apples you want, but the chicken you have to catch, then begin eating it...raw? Tearing it's flesh with the claws (you don't have)? Ripping into its muscles and organs with the rows of razor sharp teeth (you also don't have)? Or gather the wood, build a fire, cook the chicken? Right, you'd eat the frickin apples. In this brief vid Dr Davis talks a bit about his experience putting patients into ketosis for fat loss surgery, and recommends a few books he's currently reading, one of which sounds very interesting to me: "The Idiot's Guide to Plant Based Nutrition". https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Based-Nutrition-2E-Idiots-Guides/dp/1465470204/ref=dp_ob_title_bk And here is Dr. Davis:
A few words from Dr. Garth Davis, a gastroenterologist and specialist in gastric bypass surgery for weight loss, who is intimately familiar with this topic.
If your curiosity about Dr. Davis is peaked check out a talk he gave about his personal story, it's both entertaining and enlightening.
This is a complex topic. Let's begin with the obvious: human cultures have used measured doses of toxins for various purposes since the beginning of human cultures. Various purposes range from benign mood enhancement at social gatherings to horrific chemical weapons of mass destruction, and everything in between. I'm not going to approach the more destructive uses of toxins here, except to note we humans have an intractable innate capacity for destruction / self-destruction that Freud called the death instinct (instincts are intractable). That unsettling innate capacity noted, I'm going to hue closely to the title topic. This is not a blog on psychology, but emotional health is certainly within the purview. Can toxic substances have a positive effect on emotional health? We are innately attracted to certain substances because they temporarily induce euphoria, and "pleasure seeking" is one leg of the "motivational triad" that controls behavior to a predictably greater extent than conscious thought. The other two legs are "avoid pain" and "conserve energy", together they can be called the basic set of survival instincts present in all creatures. (See the book "The Pleasure Trap"). The motivational triad works quite well for creatures in the original primordial setting, as there are no circumstances occurring outside the innate "instinct envelope", in other words there are no technologically concentrated substances. There is honey (and bee stings), but no white sugar, cocoa leaves, but no cocaine. Modern humans have the innate instinct set of "primordial conditions", but live in a self-made wilderness of concentrated substances. So how might a chemically induced pleasurable (euphoric) episode benefit emotional health? It's like a mini holiday that does not require the effort and expense of actual travel. Changes in routine and perspective can "reset" emotional condition in very positive ways. The important question: is it possible to gain a net benefit to health? The answer would be yes if biologically destructive impact is outweighed by gains to emotional well being. Obviously we cannot go too far down the biologically destructive path before the net effect to health is a loss. Also obviously, there is no practical way of actually measuring net gain/loss in this situation, so it comes down to personal intuition, or "listening to your body". The notion of "intelligently measured dose" (all things in moderation) comes to play here, and as you might imagine different folks have very different interpretations as to what that is. And it becomes very easy to rationalize on this point, which is essentially one description of addiction. So there is a layer of complexity to ignore (path to addictive behavior) or contend with (balance and moderation). And many will argue since our bodies have a baseline toxic load to contend with (generated by continuous ongoing metabolic "house cleaning"), and since we cannot control (or even identify) all the toxins coming into our bodies from various sources, we should put known toxins into our bodies (most typically in the form of rich foods and alcohol), very moderately, if at all.
Does the answer to the question posed by the title seem self-evident? Perhaps it is: materials that when consumed alter biochemistry quickly and substantially. By substantial I mean "quite noticeable": one will feel ill, one will feel "high". There is a reason these substances are frequently called intoxicants. Intoxicant consumption can feel good, it can be addictive. But it's also complicated by the notion of "dose". Too much of anything will kill you...I've heard it said, don't know if it's true, drinking enough water will kill you. I kind of doubt you could breathe enough air to kill you, but hyperventilation does have an intoxicating effect. Perhaps the simplest definition of toxin is anything that is not (real) food. This one is quite relevant, as toxic "food like" substances have created epidemics in the so called metabolic syndrome diseases: heart disease (stroke and high blood pressure in this category), cancer, diabetes, and the many and varied autoimmune disorders. I realize the above is a contentious point, as we generally have not been exposed to the idea that the reductionist paradigm used in medicine is mostly counterproductive when it comes to the very desirable goal of reaching and maintaining the state of optimal health. Reductionism in medicine: "separate problems, each with specific and different treatments". The alternative view to reductionism is simply that the body is a wholistic self-regulating biomechanical, chemical, emotional entity repaired most rapidly and effectively from the general state of disrepair most of us find ourselves in simply by removing toxins from our daily lives. In the most basic terms that means simply "stop putting them in your mouth". Yes Virginia, it really is that easy on a logistic level...which is not to say it's that easy on an emotional level. But this knowledge is an excellent place from which to engage the emotional level, as it helps immeasurably knowing that terra firma actually does exist, and it's basic and simple. It is more than conceptual, it is bio-mechanical, and easily repeatable ad infinitum. This health "terra firma" can also be metaphorically referred to as "True North", which is also, not coincidentally, the name of the well known health clinic in Santa Rosa, CA. (Recommended reading on the general role of toxins in our lives: "The Pleasure Trap", written by two of the principles of The True North Health Center.) Terra firma, finally found, feels good, safe, and solid. Most of us are unaware it even exists in reality. For those folks it can feel amazing. Those brave souls who step outside the reductionist box to repair their health by discontinuing the ingestion of toxins tend to no longer "need" (or even want) the medications, supplements, and intoxicant substances that "make us high" or give us comfort...at the expense of our good health.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer We are still in the latter stages of "violently opposed", with smatterings of the early stages of "accepted as being self-evident". But the "violently opposed" camp is entrenched and heavily fortified, sitting as it is on one of the more profitable situations in history. Let me give a few examples: cardiology, oncology, pharmacology, processed food, fast food. And another example; the mechanism to funnel middle class wealth directly into the coffers of big pharma and all they've bought and paid for on capitol hill: Medicare. I'm recently on Medicare. Any interface I've had usually revolves around a central question: what meds do you take? When I say none, the assumption seems to be I misheard the question, and it is repeated. Then I feel compelled to be more clear: I am not taking any medications whatsoever. Here is a Ted Talk by a common citizen who discovered the truth more or less by accident, as many of us do.
