Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Interesting Studies: Probably low carb related in one way or another

11719212223

Replies

  • AlabasterVerveAlabasterVerve Posts: 3,040Member Member Posts: 3,040Member Member
    Your definition of robust and mine must be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?
    edited January 4
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 34,527Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 34,527Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?

    There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.

    ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.
    edited January 4
  • midwesterner85midwesterner85 Posts: 9,048Member Member Posts: 9,048Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I understand. LOL I'm getting to the point where I can see that I don't need veggies but still feel weird skipping them. There's a part of me that wants to hedge my bets and still eat some, which is why I still include some every few weeks even though I sometimes feel the worse for it. ;)

    I have been carnivore so long that my gut has adapted to it. I drink coffee (black) and tea (unsweetened), as well as add a small amount of seasonings (I plan to cut back quite a bit on that over the next few months). I went to a buffet recently in hopes of finding sufficient carnivore options. There were a few things, but not that much. So I ended up at the Italian section with some sausages in a tomato sauce. I pulled the sausages out of the sauce and did not eat the sauce, but apparently enough had soaked into them or the small amount left on them was just too much for me. I spent much of the day very uncomfortable, moving very slowly, spending a fair amount of time in the bathroom, and taking pills for gas and Tums.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,023Member Member Posts: 12,023Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I understand. LOL I'm getting to the point where I can see that I don't need veggies but still feel weird skipping them. There's a part of me that wants to hedge my bets and still eat some, which is why I still include some every few weeks even though I sometimes feel the worse for it. ;)

    I have been carnivore so long that my gut has adapted to it. I drink coffee (black) and tea (unsweetened), as well as add a small amount of seasonings (I plan to cut back quite a bit on that over the next few months). I went to a buffet recently in hopes of finding sufficient carnivore options. There were a few things, but not that much. So I ended up at the Italian section with some sausages in a tomato sauce. I pulled the sausages out of the sauce and did not eat the sauce, but apparently enough had soaked into them or the small amount left on them was just too much for me. I spent much of the day very uncomfortable, moving very slowly, spending a fair amount of time in the bathroom, and taking pills for gas and Tums.

    It's pretty neat, although sometimes inconvenient, how the body can change its norm.
  • AlabasterVerveAlabasterVerve Posts: 3,040Member Member Posts: 3,040Member Member
    Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial.

    What you'd expect.

    Source
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,023Member Member Posts: 12,023Member Member
    I like that they used the words reversal and resolution with respect to patients' T2D when it went away instead of just remission. :) ;)
    edited January 8
  • AlabasterVerveAlabasterVerve Posts: 3,040Member Member Posts: 3,040Member Member
    lol That does seem pretty contentious.

    From 1992 (metabolic ward, liquid diet, 16 ppl): Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition.

    Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.

    Source via nutrition wonk
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,342Member Member Posts: 7,342Member Member
    In reading Fire in the Belly (2012 edition) by Dr. Scott-Mumby, MD. yesterday he drove home the point how getting the right amount of fiber especially soluble fiber is key to preventing premature death from all causes as I took it. The science seems to be there to support:

    "Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre."

    It seems a lot of bad stuff gets sweep out the back door with an adequate amount of fiber from quality food sources.

    Starting on page 134 he gets into the facts and fiction about fiber needs being in the 30-40 gram range with women and seniors needs being towards the low side. He states fiber is important because "it helps with weight loss, lowers cholesterol, prevents heart disease, lessens the risk of cancer and diabetes, improves digestion and greatly benefits our gut flora, for a start."

    Below is a current paper on the fiber/health connection importances.

    https://health.harvard.edu/heart-health/healthy-gut-healthy-heart

    Healthy gut, healthy heart?
    How the trillions of bacteria in your intestinal tract play a role in your cardiovascular health.
    Published: June, 2018

    "If you ask most medical experts about the hottest trends in health research, chances are they'll mention the microbiome. The term refers to the trillions of microbes living inside our bodies, known as the human microbiota. The vast majority of these bacteria, viruses, and fungi dwell deep within our intestines. These microbes help with digestion, make certain nutrients, and release substances that have wide-ranging health effects.

    "There's a complex interplay between the microbes in our intestines and most of the systems in our bodies, including the vascular, nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. All of these relationships are highly relevant to cardiovascular health," says Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.


    Microbe metabolites
    As you'd expect, what we eat plays a major role in the composition of our gut microbiota. And we're learning more about how the substances gut microbes churn out (called metabolites) influence our risk for many chronic diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, says Dr. Manson.

    One of the best known of these gut metabolites, called trimethylamine (TMA), forms when gut microbes feed on choline, a nutrient found in red meat, fish, poultry, and eggs. In the liver, TMA is converted to trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a substance strongly connected with the formation of artery-clogging plaque (atherosclerosis). A 2017 study in the Journal of the American Heart Association by Dr. Manson and colleagues pooled findings from 19 studies looking at the connection between blood levels of TMAO and serious cardiovascular problems (mainly heart attacks and strokes).

    People with the highest TMAO levels were 62% more likely to experience serious cardiovascular problems than those with the lowest levels. High TMAO levels were also linked to higher mortality rates. What's more, these connections were independent of traditional risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and kidney problems. This suggests that TMAO could be a novel target for prevention or treatment strategies.

    Gut microbe metabolites are also known to influence other factors closely tied to cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and inflammation. For example, a high-fiber diet may encourage the growth of gut bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids. A gut that includes these microbes seems to help people with diabetes better control their blood sugar and body weight, according to one small study....."
  • AlabasterVerveAlabasterVerve Posts: 3,040Member Member Posts: 3,040Member Member
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,023Member Member Posts: 12,023Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Your definition of robust and mine mist be a different thing. Unless you have a study in mind you find particularly compelling that you think I missed?

    There are decades are research and meta-analyses on the subject. So I am not sure how you are determining it's not robust research? If you really want me to show you research, I would need to know your definition, because it's really not worth me arguing with people who won't look at research independent and remove their biases. This is actually one of the few topics within the scientific community that isn't really disputed and a pretty strong consensus.

    ETA: I also don't want to detract from this thread. Which is why I would need more information from you.

    I'll take that as a no then. There isn't any particular study you find compelling but that you find the decades of research in and of itself proof - no matter how flawed the studies? There's a mound of it, it must be right really isn't good enough for me. I'm comfortable in my belief that some vegetables are better than none but am open to the possibility that isn't correct.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext

    Just in case you haven't seen it. Mor support for the benefits of fibrous foods, to include high quality carb sources. Go ahead and keep thinking fiber isn't necessary or beneficial.

    That article most likely does not touch on what was being discussed: a ketones genie diet with vegetables vs a carnivorous diet without vegetables. I have not gone through all the sources of that metabalysis, but I am guess the low fibre group were comprised of those getting plenty of carbs but from highly processed and refined sources like bread, sugars, junky carbs and noodles.

    It does not prove that a diet containing veggies, but void of almost all processed carbs, is better than a diet without any plants. I'd venture a guess that still having carbs in the diet makes a difference in how useful fibre is. That seems to be the major benefit of fibre, and foods naturally rich in fibre - carb digestion and nutrition content. The fibre seems to help in carb digestion and BG control when one eats carbs but it doesn't help if you aren't eating them.

    Did you read the article? It looks at food quality based a ton of other research.

    Just under 135 million person-years of data from 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials with 4635 adult participants were included in the analyses. Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre. Risk reduction associated with a range of critical outcomes was greatest when daily intake of dietary fibre was between 25 g and 29 g. Dose-response curves suggested that higher intakes of dietary fibre could confer even greater benefit to protect against cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal and breast cancer. Similar findings for whole grain intake were observed. Smaller or no risk reductions were found with the observational data when comparing the effects of diets characterised by low rather than higher glycaemic index or load. The certainty of evidence for relationships between carbohydrate quality and critical outcomes was graded as moderate for dietary fibre, low to moderate for whole grains, and low to very low for dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load. Data relating to other dietary exposures are scarce.

    Its not these one one of LCHF diets. Its a meta analysis of hundreds of studies.

    But again, we can sit back and make assessments based on personal biases while arguing the existing evidence. This isn't the only meta analysis that demonstrates these findings. Simply good meta analyses of fruits and vegetables and you will see a ton of other studies.

    Where is this kind of evidence regarding keto or carnivore diets showing there is no additional benefit to having fiber?

    I did read it. Did you notice it is not about what was being discussed? No plants? No fibre?

    Again, I don;t doubt that a diet low in fibre may not be ideal if eating plants. It says nothing about no plants. It is possibly completely irrelevant unless you can show that eating a low fibre diet = no fibre diets with no plants.

    But I'll stop. Apologies. This is not a debate thread but rather a collection of resources related to LCHF. A useful one too.
    edited January 14
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,023Member Member Posts: 12,023Member Member

    Canada's new food guidelines are encouraging plant based protein instead of milk and red meat because of the evil saturated fat which has supposedly been proven to lead to CAD. ;)

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3660130/meat-dairy-canada-food-guide-changes/

  • AlabasterVerveAlabasterVerve Posts: 3,040Member Member Posts: 3,040Member Member
    Crazy times.



    [Post edited by MFP staff to remove political references.]
    edited January 19
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,023Member Member Posts: 12,023Member Member
    Meh. Government guidelines are always years behind science. Our guidelines are coming out soon...

    I agree that the way beef and eggs are produced right now is bad for the environment, but that does not make the products bad - just the farming practices. I don't know why they keep confounding that. :(

    Have you read Defending Beef by Niman yet? She makes some great points for beef consumption and better farming practices, even coming from her vegetarian point of view, especially for area like mine (semi-arid grasslands) that do not support many crops well.
    https://www.amazon.ca/Defending-Beef-Case-Sustainable-Production/dp/1603585362

    [Post edited by MFP staff to remove political references.]
    edited January 19
Sign In or Register to comment.