It won't be, ketone supplements are too expensive for that.
> My idea is that sugar in quantities we ingest nowadays damages all and makes more problems
This is nonsense. Sugar is an easily accessed fuel that your body can readily use for a variety of activities.
> then diabetics would the the healthiest people of all. Instead, they are poison, and this is well documented.
It is documented on T1D, where they make no insulin at all! Keto still helps on T1D, you will always need insulin, just less, and have more stable blood glucose (and all the benefits that entails with it).
For T2D, it's the best solution for it (see virtahealth.com for a great company that helps on this).
Keto flu is from a low level of ketones, not a high level. Once enough ketones become available there is no more keto flu. From there most people feel at least normal, and many feel a bit better than normal because the cycles of both energy and satiety are smoothed out by the change in fuel sources.
> And if ketones were that healthy then diabetics would the the healthiest people of all.
Diabetics have health complications precisely because they cannot moderate their blood glucose, with or without ketones. Ketones do not regulate blood glucose, insulin does. Unlike glucose, excess ketones are harmlessly urinated out, they do not need insulin to process them.
Glucose in the blood is toxic [1] if it isn't metabolised because of lack of insulin, and even most diabetics consume enough carbohydrates for this to be a risk. There is a clear relationship between availability of insulin and safe levels of glucose consumption, in fact injecting insulin is usually the first intervention if blood glucose is at dangerously high levels. Search for insulin in that paper.
Ketones don't enter into this picture at all as either a toxin or the solution to toxicity. Precisely the point is that ketones can substitute for most of your glucose needs without risking toxicity like glucose does.
If all of that isn't enough, diabetics often do better following a ketogenic diet [2], not worse. When you can't naturally produce enough insulin to process the glucose you consume for daily energy, producing ketones instead is a safe workaround which your body performs naturally. What part of that is evidence for ketones themselves being the problem?
Your citation is a single case study over a short period of time. It does not support your claim of “often”. This is deceptive citation and undermines your arguments.
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
> The LCKD improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes such that diabetes medications were discontinued or reduced in most participants.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22673594/
> The LCD and LCKD had beneficial effects on all the parameters examined.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024764/
> LCD can improve blood glucose more than LFD in Chinese patients with T2DM. It can also regulate blood lipid, reduce BMI, and decrease insulin dose in patients with T2DM.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34338787/
> The VLCK diet appears to control glycemia and decrease body weight for up to 6 months in people with obesity and diabetes. Beneficial changes in serum triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, along with reductions in antidiabetic medications, continued in the VLCK group until 12 months. However, the quality of currently available evidence is not sufficient to recommend VLCK diets. A major limitation of the VLCK diet is patients' lack of adherence to carbohydrate restriction.
So sure, there are issues with adherence and the volume & quality of data here. That doesn't invalidate the trends seen across every study that looks into this. It's more than one study and, within each study, it indeed seems to benefit most participants.
You are confusing this with beta cell function, which also becomes impaired in many T2D people, where the islet cells become damaged, insulin production is subsequently impaired as well, this is a later stage effect in T2D progression.
T2D likely manifests from prolonged energy surplus leading to oxidative damage to cells and accumulation of excess fat stores, particularly visceral fat stores in the organs - the cell damage and overfull visceral and sometimes subcutaneous fat stores both lead to hormonal and epigenetic changes and directly to insulin resistance.
That's still oversimplified, but it's a useful model.
A glass of wine is harmless. A bottle of hard spirit will poison and potentially kill you.
Your body can nullify small amounts of alcohol. But if you drink more toxin than what your body can neutralize it poisons you.
Sugar and carbs rise glucose level in your blood. When it's small amount your blood will re-distribute it to cells as fuel.
But if you eat enough sugar and carbs that your body cannot absorb all the glucose, you become fat and develop diabetes.
So yeah, sugar is fuel and tastes good but in modern food products it's used everywhere which makes moderate use very hard to achieve.
That's why 99 million of Americans are overweight, 70 million are obese.
29 million have diagnosed diabetes, 10 million estimated undiagnosed diabetes and 115 million pre-diabetes.
I think you'll have to expand on what you're trying to say here as taking it at face value is clearly untrue.
But it is indisputable that your body processes carbs, protein, and fat in very different ways. If you only eat donuts and bacon and candy consistently, in normal caloric levels, then you will likely develop type 2 diabetes (or more precisely insulin resistance). Glucose in your blood is toxic. Are you really going to argue that this diet is perfectly safe?
I'm not sure that I ever claimed it was? All I'm saying is there's no point in vilifying those food types as they can be part of a perfectly healthy diet.