@Outdoctrination@peoplesuck Wording in terms of guarantees in medicine matters immensely! Accuracy matters in science which you have apparently forgotten because it inconveniences your monetization strategy which is views over honesty.
Barring stress or illness, for me this has always meant you just aren't into your man that much OR there are likely relationship issues that need resolution.
The honest truth is that a lot of married women and women in long-term relationships feel this way. I realize this will anger many men, but itโs pretty normal. I donโt know what the solution is, I just know itโs common
As we age, especially after 60 years, there is a marked accumulation of mutations in our mitochondrial DNA. These are undetected (cryptic) until they expand into clones and, while associated with clonal hematopoiesis (CHIP), they may independently have an impact on health outcomes @Nature
https://t.co/fO9xmSIbDc
"Preferred fuel" is a red herring here. It's a technical term meaning it has oxidative priority. Being "preferred" would not imply that the body tries to make sure it always has ketone bodies (KBs) under any macro context.
But is it the best fuel? Is it at least as good as glucose?
Yes, it's absolutely true that glucose is in a fundamental and cross-species way a basic fuel for brains in maintenance, while developing brains even in many other species, but especially in humans, normally require KBs. Hence their elevation in placenta, and late pregnancy transfer, and the ketogenic state of newborns, the ketogenic propensity of breastfeeding, and the role of adipose tissue in human babies. Hence their presence even overnight in many cases up through adulthood. Hence their ability to help repair neurodegeneration.
KBs are important for neuroplasticity, and humans are unique in having a brain development trajectory that spans decades after birth.
I don't understand how anyone could make a serious argument that it's "not clear whether our ancestors had experience with ketogenic diets", and then implicitly cite modern HGs as evidence.
First of all, all modern subsistence strategies, from very high carb to very low, are solutions to the problem of (likely self induced) loss of megafauna. For the majority of the 2 million years of homo erectus and early modern humans, we lived primarily on fatty meat with little to no regular digestible carbohydrates. What choice would there be but to be in ketosis much of that time? It simply would not have been possible to support the human brain on the combination of available digestible carbohydrate and the limited gluconeogenic capacity we have due to our specific provenance.
And this long exposure to this subsistence situation is reflected in many of our physiological adaptationsโadaptations that reflect high reliance on a fat-based metabolism, many of which I've written about elsewhere.
As to the specific modern HGs mentioned, it is nothing short of disingenuous to mention that Arctic genetic variants "suppress ketogenesis". As I've written about before, the genetic variant that somewhat *inhibits* ketogenesis was only possible because the traditional food environment was so high in HUFAs that it drastically increases ketogenesis, such that lower ketogenesis was possible while still being in significant ketosis. The adaptation had the advantage of actually allowing ketosis to persist on the face of higher protein intake.
Critically, the same genetic change equally inhibits gluconeogenesis, so if you argue that these populations had no ketosis on their traditional diet then you must also imply they had no significant GNG. So how did they fuel their brains!? No. Traditional diet permitted plenty of ketosis. That myth has to die.
As to Maasai, there is contention around their diet. I have personal friends who visited a few decades ago and insisted the diet was essentially plant free for everyone. I have not been there and there is not consensus and it's probably different now, so I will not insist a particular story about it.
Nonetheless, I must reiterate that modern HGs are *not* a suitable proxy for our evolutionary past. Wild game today is not high enough in fat to support the modern human physiological architecture and so we do what we can to maximize fat yield from domesticated animals and supplement with digestible carbohydrate that we've learned to grow as well. This works.
But none of this means that we can't survive and thrive perfectly well in long term ketosis when food sources allow. It is our heritage.
@newstart_2024 This is the opinion of ONE white, male psychiatrist. It is NOT this stark nor is having higher emotional sensitivity a hindrance to all kinds of accomplishments.
This is false; you both have to like each other enough.
Few people get that the majority of dissatisfying relationships are when there's a discrepancy between who likes the other more. I'm not gonna pretend that there aren't difficult seasons in long-term relationships but it's not that he has to like you more or she has to like you more, you both have to like each other enough.