mistake in bio book?
I'm in college, taking pre-health (essentially high school refresher course) in preparation for a two-year practical nursing course. One of my courses is biology. So, in a sudden pique of interest, I perused the index to see if ketosis was listed. It was, along with ketoacidosis. I flipped to the pages, and promptly freaked out.
According to my book, ketosis leads to coma and death, while ketoacidosis gives the breath a fruity scent, and is a product of a "no-carb diet". I took some screen caps of both pages and underlined in red the parts that had me silently fuming in a public place.
Am I seeing this correctly? Do I have reason to freak out?
From everything I've read, it's the opposite, right?
Ketosis or ketoacidosis in the presence of available carbohydrates is bad.
I try to get into Ketosis, but it's really hard unless you're under 20 net carbs per day for a long period of time and ocassionally fasting.... I'd love to hear some expert's opinions on the matter!!
Here's a good write-up by a respected expert in nutrition: [url=http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/A%20brief%20discussion%20of%20ketosis]Hyperlipid: A brief discussion of ketosis[/url]
Ketosis in the context of a diabetic is a 'bad' thing. Ketosis in the context of a metabolically normal person is a 'normal' thing. Here are some things I have heard and believe to be true, feel free to dispute:
- When babies are born, they are in ketosis.
- Almost everybody is in ketosis when they wake up in the morning.
- Being in ketosis, and eating at a calorie surplus, will lead to weight gain.
- Being 'in-ketosis' and being 'Fat-adapted' are two different things.
- Eating less than 25g carbs per day does not guarantee ketosis if you overeat on protein.
Looks like they just mixed the two terms up.
Definitely a mix-up, very possibly introduced during the editing process because editors are often not subject matter experts, so something like that could slip in even though the author may have been quite knowledgeable.
I believe your book is referring to Diabetic Ketoacidosis. That's really bad! The big difference is one is caused by diet, and you still have a fully functional endocrine system. The other is the result of a failed endocrine system. It isn't the ketoacidosis by itself that's the issue.
Ketoacidosis is by definition diabetic ketoacidocis. The book just flat out screwed up and got the terms "ketosis" and "ketoacidosis" backasswards.
Makes you wonder how much of the other info in it you can trust.
There's actually 2 possibilities:
A: As you suspect, they transposed the terms ketosis and ketoacidosis
B: I'm not actually responding to your question right now because I'm suffering from coma and/or death
So if you can see this, it's A.
Yes, that's a mistake - they've completely ignored the buffering capacity of the blood. Unfortunately, most nutritionists equate ketosis with ketoacidosis, which of course is wrong.
A low carbohydrate diet can induce a state of ketosis. Ketones by themselves will acidify the blood. However, the blood is able to easily maintain a stable pH in this context thanks to multiple mechanisms that maintain acid-base homeostasis, most notably the buffering capacity of bicarbonate.
Ketoacidosis most commonly results from diabetes and alcohol, and ketosis is a prerequisite. It is a not a "common consequence of 'no-carbohydrate' diets". (There are multiple errors just in this little excerpt - pretty horrible textbook!)