The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
My understanding is that they are the brain's preferred fuel source. Meaning, they are going to be the first fuels used by the brain when there's a buffet of fuels available. If there's glucose in my bloodstream, there's circulating liquid ketones, the ketones would be used first or preferentially. Is that true?
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
because at that point in time there were really only two fuels that a neuron would ingest right so under normal circumstances it was exclusively glucose and then george cahill showed in the 60s yeah but if you starve somebody you can turn up to 60 of that fuel stock into beta hydroxybutyrate i think it was bhp maybe it was acetoacetate but it was it was a ketone right so you'd be maybe 60 40 in favor of a ketone to glucose but that was really it
but it's hard to imagine you're ever going to get glucose to less than 40% of the brain's fuel which would be which would be a big achievement right? So if you if you did all of those tricks, >> you ramped up ketones, you took glucose down peripherally to 2.5, even 3 mill. >> Um, >> all of, you know, so if you have a if you have a glucose to ketone index of 1.1 and they're both sitting at 3 mill >> um, and you're doing all those therapies, the brain, the neurons are still getting 40 to 50% of their energy from glucose.