If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
"Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P." wrote:
Normal people are not having hyperketonemia from being on *ketogenic* LC diets. One would expect folks on *ketogenic* LC diets to have serum ketone concentrations somewhere between 0.5 micromol/ml and 10 micromol/ml. Now look again at Figure 1 paying close attention to MDA (marker of lipid peroxidation, which is the bad stuff). I would not want any of that increasing in my arteries. Dear friend, I too worry about the known atherogenic properties of ketogenic diets. However, it is not simply an issue of ketogenesis vs glycolysis but rather a complex interaction between the two metabolic processes. To simplify the thousands of complex biologic interactions that can vary hourly into one or two basic science studies is missing the forest for the trees. The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". Ime, they do. I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. Here we have no choice but to base our concerns on in vitro data such as that which has been cited until (if ever) there is long-term safety data that refutes the in vitro data. People are complex organisms with complex social behaviors (which is why we are so fascinating!). Agree. The glory is all God's here. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Bob M wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:32:10 -0500, Ron Ritzman wrote: On 27 Oct 2003 04:12:22 -0800, (Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.) wrote: The real question one should ask is "Do sustained ketogenic diets (not ketosis from diabetes) in individuals with glycolated hemoglobin (HgbA1-c) under 5.0 and without exposure to known risk factors for atherosclerosis suffer from accelerated atherosclerosis?". I have yet to see such a study in my 10 years of practice, and doubt there will be one because such a study would be extremely difficult to administer. From what I have seen posted, the jury is still out but I understand Dr. Chung's position on this. Even though he uses terms such as "studies nay suggest" and "there is reason to *believe*" when talking about diet induced ketosis, he believes there are enough unknowns and question marks to say that it's safer for those who are overweight to simply "eat less" of the foods you are eating right now then roll the dice with ketosis. (his two pound diet approach covers the "simply") Still, it is refreshing to see this issue being debated with published studies and people who appear to have some level of clue rather then Atkids regurgitating what their favorite diet book authors say. Yeah, but there are unknowns in everything. I have been following a low carb dieat almost exclusively since the beginning of this year, and intermittently for a year or so before then. I've lowered my weight about 50 pounds, increased my HDL, decreased my LDL, and decreased my triglycerides. The problem is that no one has taken the time to study low carb diets because they go against the party line. They did not go against Dr. Atkins' party line. He had 30 yrs to conduct the *safety* studies. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works
Aramanth Dawe wrote:
:: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500, Aaron Baugher :: wrote: :: snip :: :::: "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 :::: months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't :::: handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our :::: results." ::: ::: That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish ::: research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to ::: exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing ::: knowledge. :: :: It's the way ALL reputable scientific journals operate. :: :: Papers come in. The editors send them off to other reputable :: scientists in that particular field to be reviewed - basically, the :: editors want to make sure the paper is 'good science'. The editor :: then takes into account the comments of the reviewer(s) as to whether :: or not the paper is plausible, is well written and the experiments :: (if :: any) described therein are good science in deciding whether to reject :: the paper outright, ask for revision and resubmission or publish it. :: If your work happens to be in accord with current thinking on the :: topic, it's more likely to be published or at least only minor :: revision before publication. If your work, no matter how well :: researched, does NOT fit with current thinking it's more likely to be :: rejected. :: :: As it happens, this is a situation that effects my family on a :: regular :: basis. :: :: My husband is a professional Research Scientist. His paid work is as :: a civilian scientist attached to the Australian Defence Force. He :: publishes about 5 or so papers a year (mostly classified, or I'd :: point :: you to them) in that field and they are rarely returned for more than :: minor revision before publication. He also has (classified) Patents :: in his name for his sonar enhancement system (ISHTAR - you can see :: some unclassified information at :: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/corpo...industry1.html :: if you're interested in what he gets up to). :: :: His PhD work was in Tachyon Physics. His theories in this field are :: VERY controversial, although they fit better with established :: knowledge than do the current theories in this field. It takes him :: approximately 3 years of revision and resubmission to get every paper :: published. It's not that his papers in Tachyons are poorly written. :: It's not that his papers are poorly researched. It's just that most :: of the reviewers out there *have a vested interest in having *their* :: theories be the accepted ones* so they reject papers showing that :: they :: might have been wrong. keep in mind that reviewers don't reject submissions, they make recommendations on whether a submission should be accepted or rejected, or have revisions made. Also, for their recommendations to carry weight, they must provide a clear reason for their position. They can't just claim that the results are invalid simply because they outside their realm of experience or knowledge on the matter. If a paper is well written and the research methods are well stated and well executed, and the conclusions are in agreement with any data given, and sound theory is applied throughout the submission, the reviewers are duty bound to recommend publication. At that point, if there is still debate of certain controverial issues, they get hammered out in print. That, imo, is where the fun starts! About the 3 years of revision/resubmission....a lot of that has to do with people just being busy and not turning in reviewers in a timely manner. :: :: Since most editors of journals *don't* have the expertise to be a :: peer-reviewer of *every* subject that their journal covers they have :: to rely on the judgements of those who *do* have the expertise. This :: is true throughout all the branches of science. And, since :: scientists are no less human than anyone else you might meet :: (although :: some people might think so) they *do* tend to unconsciously protect :: their livelihoods by demanding greater proof of controversial papers :: than they might of ones that support their own views. Even if editors have the expertise, they very likely won't have the time. Also, having mulitple independent recommendations helps to remove bias in the decision making process.. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote:
If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible, which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet would work or not in its pure form. I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the 2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever. The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for many years and then to compare their disease statistics with those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the same period of years. I don't think ketosis is the problem but continually high fat in the blood and in the intestines. However, my ESP tells me that any positive correlation between Atkins and higher rates of heart problems and cancer problems can probably be nullified if not reversed by strict adherence to daily strenuous exercise and daily high water consumption. In other words, I expect it will be shown that when you do the Atkins diet, you must do the diet component, the exercise component, and the water drinking component, and that the exercise and water components are as important as the diet component. I won't be surprised if the studies end up showing that if you're a sloth going in and you remain a sloth, the Atkins diet will increase your chances of dying before your time. martin |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:45:01 +0100 in article
"M.W.Smith" wrote: Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote: If there is a "party", then there are those who are not part of the "party". Why have they not done the research then? On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:44:39 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think it is too hard. I suspect that the main effect of the diet is the reduction in hunger and craving, so that most of thr weight loss is actually due to eating less. You would have to keep people locked in a "Big Brother" kind of environment so that you could rigidly control what they eat and prevent them from exercising. It isn't really feasible, which is why I think a computer simulation of the entire chemistry is the only way. That would show that the diet would work or not in its pure form. I think the simulation is an interesting tool indeed. I also concur with your ideas about the difficulties of testing diets. A control group would be hard to control, wouldn't they? This holds true for the 2PDiet, Atkins, Ornish or whatever. The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for many years and then to compare their disease statistics with those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the same period of years. I don't think ketosis is the problem but continually high fat in the blood and in the intestines. However, my ESP tells me that any positive correlation between Atkins and higher rates of heart problems and cancer problems can probably be nullified if not reversed by strict adherence to daily strenuous exercise and daily high water consumption. In other words, I expect it will be shown that when you do the Atkins diet, you must do the diet component, the exercise component, and the water drinking component, and that the exercise and water components are as important as the diet component. I won't be surprised if the studies end up showing that if you're a sloth going in and you remain a sloth, the Atkins diet will increase your chances of dying before your time. In one of his usenet messages Lyle McDonald, the author the book _The Ketogenic Diet_ (http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/), emphasizes that one shouldn't equate Atkins' diet with a low-carb/ketogenic diet, and that low-carb/ketogenic diet can be made a lot healthier than Atkins' diet. The link to the message is http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3EBDD62B.8E580569%40grandecomIMRETARDE D.net (http://tinyurl.com/so0e) A citation: "As well, in a low calorie/weight losing condition, lipid profiles almost always improve on a ketogenic diet. DESPITE a high saturated fat intake. Of course, this only holds during the weight loss phase of the diet; at weight maintenance or during weigh gain, blood lipid profiles generally deteriorate on a ketogenic diet. However, there is NO rule that says that the same diet used to lose weight must be the same diet used to maintain weight. One can shift from a true ketogenic diet towards a more 'balanced' (defined as any diet with 100 g carbs/day) diet during maintenance. That would be accomplished by lowering fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake. As well, there is NO rule that says a ketogenic diet has to be high in saturated fats. Once again, don't equate the Atkins diet (a piece of **** for the most part) with a low-carb/ketogenic diet. The Atkins diet is a lowcarb/keto diet but all keto diets are NOT the Atkins diet. To whit, a diet of lean proteins, primarily healthy fats and tons of vegetables (with moderate fruit intake) is (most likely) going to be a ketogenic diet. It would be astoundingly healthy (esp. in comparison to both the Standard American Diet and probably the food pyramid). It would also, most likely, be a ketogenic diet (defined as any diet containing 100 grams of carbs/day or less). It would only share the definition of 'ketogenic' with the Atkins diet." -- Matti Narkia |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message ... SNIP They did not go against Dr. Atkins' party line. He had 30 yrs to conduct the *safety* studies. Here's the problem: LC advocates have been viewed as frauds by your ilk for decades. Until very recently, any study they conducted (or partially funded) was dismissed out of hand by the keepers of the orthodoxy--who seldom took the time to read them. These studies are also expensive to undertake. Why sink lots of $$$$ into a study whose results the "establishment" stubbornly refuses to accept. "Knowing" that the earth was flat, your kind saw no need to conduct studies to bear out what the LC advocates had been claiming. I have some great recipes for all the egg on your collective faces. 1. Studies conducted by or funded by LC advocates/researchers didn't count. 2. The medical establishment, although biased against LC diets, chose not to conduct any major studies of the issue. Those poor *******s who did undertake small trials were shouted down any time the elders didn't like their results. What was a guaranteed way for an MD to lose credibility from 1960 to 1990? Conduct a legitimate study of the LC phenom. If the results support existing doctrine . . . "Ha--told you so". If the results contradict existing doctrine . . . "Well, er, it um was er a small sample. "One er shouldn't um extrapolate from these limited results. Er, larger studies are warranted . . ." {Obviously these larger studies never happened. Who wants to **** away one's credibility (if not livelihood) by questioning the Holy Canon.} I'm surprised a highly educated man like you failed to see the "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" mentality in your last comment . . . or perhaps you did. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:06:43 GMT, Matti Narkia
wrote: In one of his usenet messages Lyle McDonald, the author the book _The Ketogenic Diet_ (http://www.theketogenicdiet.com/), emphasizes that one shouldn't equate Atkins' diet with a low-carb/ketogenic diet, and that low-carb/ketogenic diet can be made a lot healthier than Atkins' diet. The link to the message is http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3EBDD62B.8E580569%40grandecomIMRETARDE D.net (http://tinyurl.com/so0e) And Lyle is usually right Yea, how many Atkids are doing the diet with Salmon, lean meats, flax oil and macadamia nuts? When I did the diet (limited budget) my typical breakfast was either a protein drink or a half can of Double Q salmon, lunch, a Wendy's chicken BLT salad with a low carb dressing or lemon. Dinner, Chicken or the leanest cut of beef or pork I could find on special at Kroger, a salad and/or a green vegetable. I did not constantly "pig out" on bacon, sausage, and bunless burgers. (though I won't say I never ate those things.) Lyle made another interesting point. Weight loss itself, regardless of the composition of the diet, often improves lipid numbers. So does exercise. So even one on the "high sat fat" Atkins diet, (assuming it's resulting in a calorie deficit and the dieter is exercising) the dieter is often better off then he was on his old diet sitting in his easy chair his only exercise being Budweiser curls and the 5 yard commercial break potty dash. -- Ron Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can figure out my email address |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
The only place we might differ is in studying the pathological effects of, say, ketosis over a term. Not being a researcher, I am not at all certain if this is doable but I am told, by researchers, it is. On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:45:01 +0100, "M.W.Smith" wrote: I think that aspect of it *is* testable. It just requires subjects to be on a generally high-fat-low-carb diet for many years and then to compare their disease statistics with those of people who were not on that kind of diet during the same period of years. What about environmental variants? Trans fat intakes? How do you get a clinically clean control group or testing group? However, my ESP tells me that any positive correlation between Atkins and higher rates of heart problems and cancer problems can probably be nullified if not reversed by strict adherence to daily strenuous exercise and daily high water consumption. What is the reason for high water consumption? In other words, I expect it will be shown that when you do the Atkins diet, you must do the diet component, the exercise component, and the water drinking component, and that the exercise and water components are as important as the diet component. Is this high water consumption to offset water loss in ketosis or water loss in Atkins at all times of the diet? I won't be surprised if the studies end up showing that if you're a sloth going in and you remain a sloth, the Atkins diet will increase your chances of dying before your time. It is your opinion, then, that Atkins, or perhaps any diet (including the 2PDiet) would be, or could be, counterproductive to long life if not combined with an appropriate exercise program? And if that is the case, should that program leaned to the aerobic or anaerobic ? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Ketosis, Ketogenic diets and atherosclerosis
Ron Ritzman wrote:
Yea, how many Atkids are doing the diet with Salmon, lean meats, flax oil and macadamia nuts? When I did the diet (limited budget) my typical breakfast was either a protein drink or a half can of Double Q salmon, lunch, a Wendy's chicken BLT salad with a low carb dressing or lemon. Dinner, Chicken or the leanest cut of beef or pork I could find on special at Kroger, a salad and/or a green vegetable. I did not constantly "pig out" on bacon, sausage, and bunless burgers. (though I won't say I never ate those things.) However, for a great many overweight people, a big problem is sticking to the diet, whatever the diet. The high fat foods of Atkins serve to eliminate the hunger and cravings that are most dieters' downfall. For these people, the diet you are talking about will not so effectively reduce hunger and cravings. Lyle made another interesting point. Weight loss itself, regardless of the composition of the diet, often improves lipid numbers. So does exercise. So even one on the "high sat fat" Atkins diet, (assuming it's resulting in a calorie deficit and the dieter is exercising) the dieter is often better off then he was on his old diet sitting in his easy chair his only exercise being Budweiser curls and the 5 yard commercial break potty dash. I agree, but my point was that the exercise might completely nullify the long term negative effects of the high fat in the diet. martin |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 05:56 PM |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM | |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM |
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 84 | November 17th, 2003 12:31 AM |
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet | Diarmid Logan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 79 | November 17th, 2003 12:31 AM |