Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Nutritional Ketosis and alzheimer's/cancer
Options
Replies
-
There is some great research being done. I have read about a fasting-mimicking diet studied by Dr Valter Longo at University of Southern California. (Sorry I don't know how to link to it) Some interesting findings regarding cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. To my understanding it would be a form of short term ketogenic diet.0
-
There is much conflicting evidence in the diet/Alzheimer connection. In some cultures who live on very low carbohydrates, the risk for Alzheimer's and other dementias are low. But in some cultures who live a complete opposite lifestyle, such as Mediterranean islanders, the same is true. I don't think diet is the root cause for the disease, but diet may worsen the condition. Most research shows systemic inflammation as the culprit, and a defect in the brain's ability to keep tau protein and amyloids from accumulating in the brain.
I didn't think the mediterranean diet was high carb. I thought it was low to modereate carb. I could be very wrong. I haven't pinned down a definition of that diet.
0 -
There is much conflicting evidence in the diet/Alzheimer connection. In some cultures who live on very low carbohydrates, the risk for Alzheimer's and other dementias are low. But in some cultures who live a complete opposite lifestyle, such as Mediterranean islanders, the same is true. I don't think diet is the root cause for the disease, but diet may worsen the condition. Most research shows systemic inflammation as the culprit, and a defect in the brain's ability to keep tau protein and amyloids from accumulating in the brain.
I didn't think the mediterranean diet was high carb. I thought it was low to modereate carb. I could be very wrong. I haven't pinned down a definition of that diet.
It tends to be higher in carbs (fruits, veggies, whole grains) and fats/protein are oils and fish.1 -
I haven't done research. But I work with Alzheimers patients, most in the mid to advanced stages of the disease. And, with few exceptions, they don't eat food. With an hour of coaxing, you might be able to get one to down some ice cream, pudding, candy or a milkshake. But that's about it. I'm NOT saying sugary food causes Alzheimers. But that's definitely the food they favor, if they eat at all.
Yes, I know what you're saying about advanced Alzheimer's and eating patterns. However, there are many factors here : poor attention span means a traditional meal is out of the question, and sugary foods are just something more likely to be eaten because they taste good. On a very primitive level, babies love breastmilk cause its sweet and that in turn helps them survive.1 -
There is much conflicting evidence in the diet/Alzheimer connection. In some cultures who live on very low carbohydrates, the risk for Alzheimer's and other dementias are low. But in some cultures who live a complete opposite lifestyle, such as Mediterranean islanders, the same is true. I don't think diet is the root cause for the disease, but diet may worsen the condition. Most research shows systemic inflammation as the culprit, and a defect in the brain's ability to keep tau protein and amyloids from accumulating in the brain.
I didn't think the mediterranean diet was high carb. I thought it was low to modereate carb. I could be very wrong. I haven't pinned down a definition of that diet.
It tends to be higher in carbs (fruits, veggies, whole grains) and fats/protein are oils and fish.
Do you know a typical macro breakdown? 30/30/40 for C/P/F?0 -
There is much conflicting evidence in the diet/Alzheimer connection. In some cultures who live on very low carbohydrates, the risk for Alzheimer's and other dementias are low. But in some cultures who live a complete opposite lifestyle, such as Mediterranean islanders, the same is true. I don't think diet is the root cause for the disease, but diet may worsen the condition. Most research shows systemic inflammation as the culprit, and a defect in the brain's ability to keep tau protein and amyloids from accumulating in the brain.
I didn't think the mediterranean diet was high carb. I thought it was low to modereate carb. I could be very wrong. I haven't pinned down a definition of that diet.
It tends to be higher in carbs (fruits, veggies, whole grains) and fats/protein are oils and fish.
Do you know a typical macro breakdown? 30/30/40 for C/P/F?
That would be already a high-fat Mediterranean Diet, but typically it would be lower in protein and higher in carbs.
As for the "typical", you have to keep in mind that the Mediterranean diet was created by extrapolating the traditional food habits of the people living in the Mediterranean basin (that nowadays are more or less "westernized"). Greek people (especially those living in Crete) had a higher intake of olive oil, so their total fat intake was indeed around 40%. But in an era of fat phobia, the recommendation was generally to keep fat below 30% or even lower, while carbs had to be over 50%, and protein around 15%.
Nowadays there is a renovated interest for the "high-fat" Med Diet, also thanks to cohort studies (like the Spanish PREDIMED) that have shown the healthfulness of a high intake of olive oil and nuts. Some authors have also hypothesized that the important factor that makes the diet healthy is the omega 3 / omega 6 ratio, somewhat similar to a Paleolithic diet.0 -
This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »There is much conflicting evidence in the diet/Alzheimer connection. In some cultures who live on very low carbohydrates, the risk for Alzheimer's and other dementias are low. But in some cultures who live a complete opposite lifestyle, such as Mediterranean islanders, the same is true. I don't think diet is the root cause for the disease, but diet may worsen the condition. Most research shows systemic inflammation as the culprit, and a defect in the brain's ability to keep tau protein and amyloids from accumulating in the brain.
I didn't think the mediterranean diet was high carb. I thought it was low to modereate carb. I could be very wrong. I haven't pinned down a definition of that diet.
It tends to be higher in carbs (fruits, veggies, whole grains) and fats/protein are oils and fish.
Do you know a typical macro breakdown? 30/30/40 for C/P/F?
That would be already a high-fat Mediterranean Diet, but typically it would be lower in protein and higher in carbs.
As for the "typical", you have to keep in mind that the Mediterranean diet was created by extrapolating the traditional food habits of the people living in the Mediterranean basin (that nowadays are more or less "westernized"). Greek people (especially those living in Crete) had a higher intake of olive oil, so their total fat intake was indeed around 40%. But in an era of fat phobia, the recommendation was generally to keep fat below 30% or even lower, while carbs had to be over 50%, and protein around 15%.
Nowadays there is a renovated interest for the "high-fat" Med Diet, also thanks to cohort studies (like the Spanish PREDIMED) that have shown the healthfulness of a high intake of olive oil and nuts. Some authors have also hypothesized that the important factor that makes the diet healthy is the omega 3 / omega 6 ratio, somewhat similar to a Paleolithic diet.
Thanks.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.
I do agree that for about half of all people, macros have very little bearing on keeping their diet healthy. For those people it would be "nuts" to focus on macros. For the other half, keeping macros in mind is a very important part of keeping a diet helathy. Not "nuts" for them.
I do think it is imporatnt for all people to follow a diet based in whole foods: vegetables and some fruit, meats, seafood, eggs, and fatty foods from plants (olives, coconut, avcado, nuts, seeds); perhaps include (unrefined) whole grains and dairy in this for those who can tolerate it. What you eat is important.
But I digress. This is off topic except that I guess we've established that a Mediterranean diet can be high or low carb? Like Paleo, "clean eating", vegetarianism, etc can also be high or low carb, and if it is low carb it could be used to treat some of the health conditions discussed earlier.
Keto diets do not need to be strict in order to be used therapeutically. I have chatted with many people who used a nutritional ketogenic diet, based in various diet guidelines (like vegetarian), who are using it to treat health issues (MS, or even T2D).
I'm using a primal ketogenic diet to help improve my health. I'm not strict, at least my diet does not feel strict in any way. I don't weigh, measure or calculate anything.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.
I happen to agree with you: what you eat is more important than the macro-nutrient breakdown. Now we just need to agree on what to eat
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.
I happen to agree with you: what you eat is more important than the macro-nutrient breakdown. Now we just need to agree on what to eat
I wasn't aware that we had huge differences on that.
I think what healthy choices, in general, are isn't that controversial. We might differ on the question of whether a healthful diet can include a certain amount of less nutrient-dense choices -- I forget the specifics of our past discussions.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.
I do agree that for about half of all people, macros have very little bearing on keeping their diet healthy. For those people it would be "nuts" to focus on macros. For the other half, keeping macros in mind is a very important part of keeping a diet helathy. Not "nuts" for them.
I do think it is imporatnt for all people to follow a diet based in whole foods: vegetables and some fruit, meats, seafood, eggs, and fatty foods from plants (olives, coconut, avcado, nuts, seeds); perhaps include (unrefined) whole grains and dairy in this for those who can tolerate it. What you eat is important.
But I digress. This is off topic except that I guess we've established that a Mediterranean diet can be high or low carb? Like Paleo, "clean eating", vegetarianism, etc can also be high or low carb, and if it is low carb it could be used to treat some of the health conditions discussed earlier.
Keto diets do not need to be strict in order to be used therapeutically. I have chatted with many people who used a nutritional ketogenic diet, based in various diet guidelines (like vegetarian), who are using it to treat health issues (MS, or even T2D).
I'm using a primal ketogenic diet to help improve my health. I'm not strict, at least my diet does not feel strict in any way. I don't weigh, measure or calculate anything.
Again, if we look at the diversity of human diets overall, claiming that half of people need low carb diets (with low carb used so generally to mean nothing) is an obviously false claim.
Also, people pushing all sorts of diets that happen to be an improvement over the SAD report similar improvements in health, often simply do to weight loss, but also because the people changing their diets gave up usually quite bad diets. That the change was due to macros is a leap too far.
You also can't jumble "therapeutic diets" and claim that "low carb" defined so broadly has positive effects. For example, for T2D, improvements come from controlling carbs and balancing them, and can be done with low carb or balanced carbs in a moderate carb diet (probably even a higher carb whole foods diet, as the proponents of those diets report huge improvements too). Any traditional diet is going to be more balanced than some "western" diets, as they don't have the capacity for people to do (IMO idiotic) things like eat tons of sugary sweets on their own or drink lots and lots of sugary soda or the equivalent.
With most of the therapeutic effects being talked about (Alzheimers, for instance, or epilepsy) the issue is not carbs being too high generally (so a difference between 60% and 40% or even 30%), but the specific benefit for that particular disorder (not necessarily prevention) of ketones. And with Alzheimers other evidence suggests that a high fat diet (not specifically keto, we don't have the evidence to test that at all) may be a risk factor in getting it, so again a reason not to just lump together all diets higher in fat than 30% or whatever and claim that they are "therapeutic" or for health or healthier than eating more carbs for half the population. That is, IMO, irresponsible.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.
I do agree that for about half of all people, macros have very little bearing on keeping their diet healthy. For those people it would be "nuts" to focus on macros. For the other half, keeping macros in mind is a very important part of keeping a diet helathy. Not "nuts" for them.
I do think it is imporatnt for all people to follow a diet based in whole foods: vegetables and some fruit, meats, seafood, eggs, and fatty foods from plants (olives, coconut, avcado, nuts, seeds); perhaps include (unrefined) whole grains and dairy in this for those who can tolerate it. What you eat is important.
But I digress. This is off topic except that I guess we've established that a Mediterranean diet can be high or low carb? Like Paleo, "clean eating", vegetarianism, etc can also be high or low carb, and if it is low carb it could be used to treat some of the health conditions discussed earlier.
Keto diets do not need to be strict in order to be used therapeutically. I have chatted with many people who used a nutritional ketogenic diet, based in various diet guidelines (like vegetarian), who are using it to treat health issues (MS, or even T2D).
I'm using a primal ketogenic diet to help improve my health. I'm not strict, at least my diet does not feel strict in any way. I don't weigh, measure or calculate anything.
it can be also ketogenic, There is already some research on that (Italian and Spanish).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »This is one of the issues with focusing so much on macros, though.
What's more similar, a diet based on lots of vegetables, not many animal products (and mostly fish for those products), some whole grains, olive oil, wine in moderation that happens to be 40% carb, 40% fat, 20% protein (for one example), or one that's 50-55% carb, 25-30% fat, 20% protein, same foods? Might someone even vary the amount of fat from day to day (a good friend of mine is Greek, for example, her parents were older and lived in Greece until shortly before she was born, and among other things they observed for religious reasons numerous days involving food-related restrictions, including no animal products or olive oil).
Or is it two "high fat" diets, one the one described above, another that's lots of meat, whole fat dairy (and those are the major sources of fat), fewer veg, no fruit, etc. and a much higher fat percentage?
I don't think macros are nearly so important as is often assumed on this forum (I do find it relevant in figuring out how I personally think about a healthful diet that no human societies seem to eat a diet that leaves them in ketosis, so it seems that's not a preferred state for the body, for whatever reason, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to say keto is unhealthy--it's just one of many reasons it doesn't seem like an ideal diet for me). Extremely healthful human diets seem to be all over the place in terms of macros. The similarities, if they exist (and from blue zones I think we can find some), are different ones.
But in discussing this here, I think it's nuts to classify diets just by macros, let alone to draw a line at, say, 40% and below as low carb (I ate 40%, and even less, for ages without really trying just because of reduced calories, and didn't consider it low or much different from my current diet) or above 30% as high fat, as if 35% of calories and 80% of calories and everything in between were similar diets.
Kind of off topic for the thread, which is about stricter keto diets for therapy, but because it was brought up.
I do agree that for about half of all people, macros have very little bearing on keeping their diet healthy. For those people it would be "nuts" to focus on macros. For the other half, keeping macros in mind is a very important part of keeping a diet healthy. Not "nuts" for them.
I do think it is imporatnt for all people to follow a diet based in whole foods: vegetables and some fruit, meats, seafood, eggs, and fatty foods from plants (olives, coconut, avcado, nuts, seeds); perhaps include (unrefined) whole grains and dairy in this for those who can tolerate it. What you eat is important.
But I digress. This is off topic except that I guess we've established that a Mediterranean diet can be high or low carb? Like Paleo, "clean eating", vegetarianism, etc can also be high or low carb, and if it is low carb it could be used to treat some of the health conditions discussed earlier.
Keto diets do not need to be strict in order to be used therapeutically. I have chatted with many people who used a nutritional ketogenic diet, based in various diet guidelines (like vegetarian), who are using it to treat health issues (MS, or even T2D).
I'm using a primal ketogenic diet to help improve my health. I'm not strict, at least my diet does not feel strict in any way. I don't weigh, measure or calculate anything.
Again, if we look at the diversity of human diets overall, claiming that half of people need low carb diets (with low carb used so generally to mean nothing) is an obviously false claim.
I disagree. If we keep in mind that a low carb diet can benefit prediabetes, T2D, NAFLD, PCOS, Alzheimer's, CAD, and in this discussion possibly some cancers, that is a good half of the population. Now I never said those "people need low carb diets" as you implied. I said, "I do agree that for about half of all people, macros have very little bearing on keeping their diet healthy. For those people it would be "nuts" to focus on macros. For the other half, keeping macros in mind is a very important part of keeping a diet healthy." Those people may chose medication or other avenues to treat their health problems but LCHF is a cheap, less invassive and healthy choice to consider.
An overweight Alzheimer's patient may go with just drugs to treat their disease. Perhaps that will be enough. Perhaps they will make some sweet tasting MCT fat bombs to eat (shifting their macros to a higher fat content) and that might help. How could trying it be a bad thing?lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, people pushing all sorts of diets that happen to be an improvement over the SAD report similar improvements in health, often simply do to weight loss, but also because the people changing their diets gave up usually quite bad diets. That the change was due to macros is a leap too far.
I agree that some people with a healthy diet may just need to lose some weight to adress their health issues but I think most fat people did not gain weight on a healthy diet. Chances are the majority were eating a lot of highly refined foods, and not vegetables, meats, fruits and actual whole grains (as opposed to refined foods that are just called whole grain like "whole grain" bread.
For those eating SAD, whole foods may be enough of a shift to improve health and it may help with weight loss, but LCHF may help more and it may help faster.
The T2D who switches to a LCHF diet usually sees their blood glucose drop with a day or two. Weight loss or a higher carb diet won't give them immediate improvements. Weight loss did nothing for my insulin resistance, which I developed while at a normal BMI (I gained after IR developed). My macro choices are the only way I am able to control my blood glucose, even after losing 20% of my body weight.
This is also seen in Alzheimers' patients. They may benefit from weight loss but some have seen benefits within days of shifting their macros to LCHF with MCT oils.lemurcat12 wrote: »You also can't jumble "therapeutic diets" and claim that "low carb" defined so broadly has positive effects. For example, for T2D, improvements come from controlling carbs and balancing them, and can be done with low carb or balanced carbs in a moderate carb diet (probably even a higher carb whole foods diet, as the proponents of those diets report huge improvements too). Any traditional diet is going to be more balanced than some "western" diets, as they don't have the capacity for people to do (IMO idiotic) things like eat tons of sugary sweets on their own or drink lots and lots of sugary soda or the equivalent.
I agree. SAD is a poor diet. For some leaving sweets and sodas may be enough, but not for all, maybe not even for most.
In your T2D example, yes improvements can come from controlling carbs and balancing them, and can be done with low carb or balanced carbs in a moderate carb diet (for some), BUT virtually all would see improvements in blood glucose control if they ate a LCHF diet. I think it's irresponsible not to mention that LCHF can almost guaratee lower BG in those with IR. Within days. Before they lose even a pound. Or start medication.lemurcat12 wrote: »With most of the therapeutic effects being talked about (Alzheimers, for instance, or epilepsy) the issue is not carbs being too high generally (so a difference between 60% and 40% or even 30%), but the specific benefit for that particular disorder (not necessarily prevention) of ketones. And with Alzheimers other evidence suggests that a high fat diet (not specifically keto, we don't have the evidence to test that at all) may be a risk factor in getting it, so again a reason not to just lump together all diets higher in fat than 30% or whatever and claim that they are "therapeutic" or for health or healthier than eating more carbs for half the population. That is, IMO, irresponsible.
So you are saying that those with epilepsy or Alzheimers can eat exactly as they did before as long as they have ketones? They should still have their usual plate of pasta with garlic bread on the side as long as you can somehow get them to down ketone esters a few times per day? That they should not bother with trying to produce ketones in a natural manner, by shifting their macros to higher fat by including MCTs (usually carbs are dropped before protein to accommodate this), but they should artificially get ketones instead? Trying a dietary change isn't worth it (because some study suggested that a high fat diet may be a risk factor in getting Alzheimer's)?
I disagree.
IMO I find it irresponsible to not tell people that dietary changes, often not even large ones, can offer theraputic benefits. Sure, it won't help everyone, but what drug or surgery is guaranteed to help everyone? Even the majority of patients? What about side effects of those drugs or procedures? Those side effects are probably more substantial than missing toast with jam for breakfast.
For example, Mary Newport's husband had fairly quickly advancing alzheimer's. He was too far gone for a few clinical trials that were testing the effects of ketones on the patients. She adjusted his macros to include up to (I believe) 8 TBS per day of coconut oil (dropping some carbs so as not to put on weight), which she slowly worked up to. He had a bowl of steel cut oats for breafast and she added coconut oil. He had coconut oil on some toast later and she cooked everything, liberally, in coconut oil. This was not a ketogenic diet, but I am sure with that much coconut oil, it was a LCHF diet. The ketones that resulted from that diet was enough to partially reverse his disease, even when he was not up to the full 8Tbs dose. http://coconutketones.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/whatifcure.pdf3 -
The Awakening from Alzheimer's "summit" just ended but the videos are still available. This is Mary Newport's interview: http://event.awakeningfromalzheimers.com/replay-episode-5 If interested, you'll need to watch it soon or it will be removed.0
-
I disagree. If we keep in mind that a low carb diet can benefit prediabetes, T2D, NAFLD, PCOS, Alzheimer's, CAD, and in this discussion possibly some cancers, that is a good half of the population.
Again, claiming that it's "a low carb" diet that benefits and ignoring the benefits (in some cases much more) from other diets is playing fast and loose with the evidence because you want so badly (for some reason) to pretend like low carbing is inherently more healthful, despite the fact that population studies don't support that at all (and nor does the other evidence).
Specific ketogenic diets have therapeutic effects in rare cases (epilepsy) and may have positive effects as treatment (not prevention, from anything credible I've seen) in some other cases -- research is ongoing.lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, people pushing all sorts of diets that happen to be an improvement over the SAD report similar improvements in health, often simply do to weight loss, but also because the people changing their diets gave up usually quite bad diets. That the change was due to macros is a leap too far.
I agree that some people with a healthy diet may just need to lose some weight to adress their health issues but I think most fat people did not gain weight on a healthy diet. Chances are the majority were eating a lot of highly refined foods, and not vegetables, meats, fruits and actual whole grains (as opposed to refined foods that are just called whole grain like "whole grain" bread.
I am (as is clear) not saying that just losing weight is the reason for the improvement (although in many cases that may be the main reason), but that improving the diet is. The improvement seems to happen with any number of dietary changes and shows that the issue wasn't "carbs" but a bad diet that gets improved. It is obvious from the numerous personal testimonies on MFP that when people claim they were overeating "carbs" it was pretty much always either candy and soda or (even more commonly) high cal, low nutrient foods that were high in fat AND carbs. And when people eating not all that many veg still say they increased veg when going low carb or keto, it's clear that their prior diets were inferior for reasons well beyond the carb percentage. There are healthier choices within the fat category and within the carbs category (and within the protein category too) that overall make up healthier or less healthy diets, but to boil down a healthy vs. non healthy diet to carb percentage shows a lack of knowledge or a desire to twist the evidence, IMO.
Of course -- we agree on this -- in some cases a ketogenic diet can be a therapeutic one, and there that may matter more than nutrition on its own. Similarly, various diets may be needed for something like Crohns that are different from what the normal diet recommended for general nutrition and healthy, but to confuse that with what half the pop needs to do or to pretend that means that lower carbs are healthier, higher fats are healthier, as if there was nothing more to it (again, high fat can be a risk factor for developing Alzheimers, although I suspect that's as part of an overall poor diet), is wrong.For those eating SAD, whole foods may be enough of a shift to improve health and it may help with weight loss, but LCHF may help more and it may help faster.
The WFPB people say this too, and have similar studies. Same with various studies of the Med diet (which has positive effects against developing various forms of dementia, including Alzheimers), and the one studied is not "high fat," let alone ketogenic.
(I don't eat the Med diet, so this isn't personal bias. My own bias is toward whole foods (and lots of vegetables and plant-based foods in general) and as local and seasonal as possible--which means a different selection of foods than in the Med diet, since I don't live in the mediterranean, and more dairy--and moderation in terms of animal products, although I often don't follow my own views on what is healthy and eat more meat than I think is ideal.)The T2D who switches to a LCHF diet usually sees their blood glucose drop with a day or two.
The same appears to happen with WFPB, even though that tends to be as high carb or more than the SAD. Different carbs, though.lemurcat12 wrote: »With most of the therapeutic effects being talked about (Alzheimers, for instance, or epilepsy) the issue is not carbs being too high generally (so a difference between 60% and 40% or even 30%), but the specific benefit for that particular disorder (not necessarily prevention) of ketones. And with Alzheimers other evidence suggests that a high fat diet (not specifically keto, we don't have the evidence to test that at all) may be a risk factor in getting it, so again a reason not to just lump together all diets higher in fat than 30% or whatever and claim that they are "therapeutic" or for health or healthier than eating more carbs for half the population. That is, IMO, irresponsible.
So you are saying that those with epilepsy or Alzheimers can eat exactly as they did before as long as they have ketones?[/quote]
No, I'm all for getting the ketones from a ketogenic diet (and experimenting with this in the case of Alzheimers, since you have assumed that the evidence is much farther along than it is--there's not at all any kind of scientific consensus on whether dietary changes will help or which ones will help most, if at all). My point was that even those hopeful about and experimenting with keto for Alzheimers (treatment, not prevention) don't claim that that it's that carbs are bad for you and there's no evidence that eating a "high fat" diet of 30%+ or even 40%+ is beneficial at all, so could not be the reason Med diets also show positives, as you seemed to be trying to argue.
The claim that half the population should be eating low carb or keto for "therapeutic" reasons just doesn't pass the laugh test. And the diseases in question are typically quite rare in many societies that have higher carb diets, so to the extent the SAD (and not just the low activity and obesity rates in our society are the issue, and again I think it definitely could play an important role), it's not carb percentage that is the culprit.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I eat a low carb, often ketogenic diet, so I'd prefer not to give any thoughts (it being woo on MFP and all) but this is what I've read this year. At the end of the second link there's a reference guide with links to 28 studies you might be interested in. Dominic D'Agostino's twitter feed will take you further down the keto rabbit hole as well.
Ketogenic diet's effect being tested on ovarian cancer patients after animal models proved successful.
"During the 12-week trial, 66 participants will be randomized into one of two diets—the ketogenic diet and a diet recommended by the American Cancer Society that emphasizes a need for whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and meats and oils low in saturated fat." Source
Modified Atkins diet in advanced malignancies - final results of a safety and feasibility trial within the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System
Modified Atkins diets are safe and feasible in advanced cancer. Quality of life was preserved. Patients who lost at least 10 % of their body weight responded the best. Steroid intake affected optimal ketone and glucose levels. Despite this, survival improved in some melanoma and lung cancer patients. Further studies are recommended. Source
NY Times Article: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death
In the early 20th century, the German biochemist Otto Warburg believed that tumors could be treated by disrupting their source of energy. His idea was dismissed for decades — until now. Link
The problem with thinking that a particular diet is going to treat cancer is that it doesn't work in practice - and this is mentioned in that last article you linked. If you limit one source of nutrients, any cells that rely mainly on that source will die off or slow their growth - but because cancers have unstable genomes, and most tumors are heterogenous (not made of a single type of cell or subtype of cancer) it is practically guaranteed that some of the cells will have acquired mutations that let them thrive on the alternative nutrient source and they continue to grow.
This is the same reason that there is such a problem with many chemotherapies and relapses. Many chemotherapies work really well against against particular subtypes of cancer. But because cancer is rarely just a single subtype, the rest just keep coming. Even better, the rest will often have acquired mutations making them resistant not only to the particular chemotherapy treatment used, but also to others that use similar mechanisms of action.
There aren't many cell types that rely just on glucose. Cancer seems unusual in it's appetite for glucose. Most cancers do not seem able to use other fuels. That's why PET scans work so well for detecting most cancers.... I wonder how much more obvious a cancerous PET scan result would be for someone who is fat adapted?
This is not correct. Unfortunately, you won't be able to get to the full publication unless you have a paid subscription to Cell Chemical Biology, but both HeLA (human cervical cancer) and H460 (human lung cancer) cell lines are more than capable of using free fatty acids as an energy source, as are fibroblasts which have a similar proliferation profile as cancer cells:
cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdf/S2451-9456(16)30083-6.pdf
When the cell cultures were grown in the standard media (which is low in lipids), the cells showed the increased glucose uptake expected of both fibroblasts and cancer cells in general. Blocking the uptake of fatty acids reduced proliferation of all three types of cells. Supplementing the media with exogenous palmitate to concentrations typical of those found in blood both decreased glucose uptake to close to 'normal' levels and made the cells less sensitive to glycolytic inhibition.
Other types of cancer have also been shown to use fatty acids as fuel, but not as well, or as clearly as this more recent study. Plus, there was no comparison to a non-cancer cell types.
This study was published in April 2016. This is the in vitro human version of similar studies of the effects of ketosis on cancer development in mice, in vivo. The mouse studies successfully showed that various types of cancer cells will use fatty acids as fuel in the complete absence of dietary carbohydrate, but did not successfully show the effect of ketosis because apparently mice don't go into ketogenesis. Additionally, the mice were SCID (severely immunodeficient) mice, so the observations on changes in tumor pathology were interesting but not generally applicable.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I eat a low carb, often ketogenic diet, so I'd prefer not to give any thoughts (it being woo on MFP and all) but this is what I've read this year. At the end of the second link there's a reference guide with links to 28 studies you might be interested in. Dominic D'Agostino's twitter feed will take you further down the keto rabbit hole as well.
Ketogenic diet's effect being tested on ovarian cancer patients after animal models proved successful.
"During the 12-week trial, 66 participants will be randomized into one of two diets—the ketogenic diet and a diet recommended by the American Cancer Society that emphasizes a need for whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and meats and oils low in saturated fat." Source
Modified Atkins diet in advanced malignancies - final results of a safety and feasibility trial within the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System
Modified Atkins diets are safe and feasible in advanced cancer. Quality of life was preserved. Patients who lost at least 10 % of their body weight responded the best. Steroid intake affected optimal ketone and glucose levels. Despite this, survival improved in some melanoma and lung cancer patients. Further studies are recommended. Source
NY Times Article: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death
In the early 20th century, the German biochemist Otto Warburg believed that tumors could be treated by disrupting their source of energy. His idea was dismissed for decades — until now. Link
The problem with thinking that a particular diet is going to treat cancer is that it doesn't work in practice - and this is mentioned in that last article you linked. If you limit one source of nutrients, any cells that rely mainly on that source will die off or slow their growth - but because cancers have unstable genomes, and most tumors are heterogenous (not made of a single type of cell or subtype of cancer) it is practically guaranteed that some of the cells will have acquired mutations that let them thrive on the alternative nutrient source and they continue to grow.
This is the same reason that there is such a problem with many chemotherapies and relapses. Many chemotherapies work really well against against particular subtypes of cancer. But because cancer is rarely just a single subtype, the rest just keep coming. Even better, the rest will often have acquired mutations making them resistant not only to the particular chemotherapy treatment used, but also to others that use similar mechanisms of action.
There aren't many cell types that rely just on glucose. Cancer seems unusual in it's appetite for glucose. Most cancers do not seem able to use other fuels. That's why PET scans work so well for detecting most cancers.... I wonder how much more obvious a cancerous PET scan result would be for someone who is fat adapted?
This is not correct. Unfortunately, you won't be able to get to the full publication unless you have a paid subscription to Cell Chemical Biology, but both HeLA (human cervical cancer) and H460 (human lung cancer) cell lines are more than capable of using free fatty acids as an energy source, as are fibroblasts which have a similar proliferation profile as cancer cells:
cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdf/S2451-9456(16)30083-6.pdf
When the cell cultures were grown in the standard media (which is low in lipids), the cells showed the increased glucose uptake expected of both fibroblasts and cancer cells in general. Blocking the uptake of fatty acids reduced proliferation of all three types of cells. Supplementing the media with exogenous palmitate to concentrations typical of those found in blood both decreased glucose uptake to close to 'normal' levels and made the cells less sensitive to glycolytic inhibition.
Other types of cancer have also been shown to use fatty acids as fuel, but not as well, or as clearly as this more recent study. Plus, there was no comparison to a non-cancer cell types.
This study was published in April 2016. This is the in vitro human version of similar studies of the effects of ketosis on cancer development in mice, in vivo. The mouse studies successfully showed that various types of cancer cells will use fatty acids as fuel in the complete absence of dietary carbohydrate, but did not successfully show the effect of ketosis because apparently mice don't go into ketogenesis. Additionally, the mice were SCID (severely immunodeficient) mice, so the observations on changes in tumor pathology were interesting but not generally applicable.
Yes, some cancers can use other fuels. Most cancer uses glucose but there are exceptions.0 -
I was dx'd with ovarian cancer and my understanding is that these cancer cells can feed on glucose and glutamine (that information from Seyfried's work). So I eat low carb, high fat to get into therapeutic ketosis (Glucose less than blood Ketones), and I am seeking supplements to help break the glucose and glutamine pathways. Anyone with any information could you please post. I have declined chemotherapy as my cancer is stage IIb, and if it comes back, I am basically stuffed.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions