 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2010High-fat ketogenic diet (to control seizures) is safe over long term
Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is medically used to treat juvenile epileptic seizures. =============================================================== http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/jhmi-hkd021610.php High-fat ketogenic diet to control seizures is safe over long term Current and former patients treated with the high-fat ketogenic diet to control multiple, daily and severe seizures can be reassured by the news that not only is the diet effective, but it also appears to have no long-lasting side effects, say scientists at Johns Hopkins Children's Center. A study report supporting their conclusion, and believed to be one of the first analyses of the long-term safety and efficacy of the diet, appears online in the February edition of the journal Epilepsia. The ketogenic diet, consisting of high-fat foods and very few carbohydrates, is believed to trigger biochemical changes that eliminate seizure-causing short circuits in the brain's signaling system. Used as first-line therapy for infantile spasms and in children whose seizures cannot be controlled with drugs, the diet is highly effective but complicated and sometimes difficult to maintain. It can temporarily raise cholesterol, impair growth and, in rare cases, lead to kidney stones, among other side effects. "Despite its temporary side effects, we have always suspected that the ketogenic diet is relatively safe long term, and we now have proof," says senior investigator Eric Kossoff, M.D., a pediatric neurologist and director of the ketogenic diet program at Hopkins Children's. "Our study should help put to rest some of the nagging doubts about the long-term safety of the ketogenic diet," he adds. The evidence is based on a study of 101 patients ages 2 to 26 years treated with the ketogenic diet for a minimum of 16 months and for up to eight years at Hopkins Children's between 1993 and 2008. At the time of the follow-up, patients were off the diet anywhere between eight months and 14 years. Nearly 80 percent of the patients remained either seizure-free or had their seizures reduced by half. Most patients' seizures did not worsen even years after stopping the diet. Researchers caution it is possible that some effects may not show up for decades. However, the evidence, especially among patients who were off the diet for more than 10 years, suggests no long-term harm. During interviews, none of the patients reported adverse cardiovascular side effects such as heart attacks, enlargement of the heart or abnormal plaque buildup in their arteries. One patient reported having high blood pressure. Only two of the 101 patients reported kidney stones after stopping the diet, the same rate found in the general population not treated with the ketogenic diet, the researchers say. None of the 25 patients who had liver and kidney function tests had abnormal results. Among the 26 patients who had their cholesterol tested, the average level was 157 milligrams per deciliter of blood (less than 200 is considered normal), with three of the 26 having abnormal levels. Most patients' cholesterol levels go up while on the diet, but are believed to return to normal thereafter. The Hopkins study now confirms that this is the case. Most patients older than 18 at the time of the study had normal body mass index of 22 on average (25 and below is considered normal). And most of them were within a few inches of their expected heights, based on their parents' heights. Patients 18 years and younger at the time of the study were, on average, in the 25th percentile for height and in the 36th percentile for weight for their age. While this is below average, the investigators say, it is also much higher than the usual 5th–to-10th percentile while on the diet. "We have every reason to believe that most children will start catching up once they are off the diet as they grow up because this is what we see in older former patients," Kossoff says. Contrary to the fear of many parents, the diet does not appear to alter patients' food preferences, the researchers say. Only 8 percent of those in the study said they continued to eat predominantly high-fat foods. ### Conflict of interest disclosure: Dr. Kossoff has received grant support from Nutricia, Inc. and consultant fees from Nutricia and Atkins Nutritionals Inc. The research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Carson Harris Foundation. Co-investigators include Amisha Patel, Paula Pyzik, Zahava Turner and James Rubenstein. Related on the Web: Daily Potassium Citrate Wards Off Kidney Stones in Seizure Patients in High-Fat Diet http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Daily_Potassium_Citrate_Wards_Off_Kidney_Stones_ in_Seizure_Patients_On_High-Fat_Diet.aspx High Cholesterol Levels Drop Naturally in Children on High-Fat Anti-Seizure Diet http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children-high-fat-a nti-seizure-diet.aspx Modified Atkins Diet Effectively Treats Childhood Seizures http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Modified-Atkins-Diet-Treats-Childhood-Seizures.aspx Carson Harris-A patient story http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/tpl_rlinks_nobanner.aspx?id=5972&terms=cars > Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is > medically used to treat juvenile epileptic seizures. [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > Carson Harris-A patient storyhttp://www.hopkinschildrens.org/tpl_rlinks_nobanner.aspx?id=5972&term... Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this really shows much about the long term safety. The subjects had been on a ketogenic diet for anywhere from 16 months to 8 years and off it for anywhere from 8 months to 14 years. So, they could have a significant number of people who were on it for a couple years, then off it for 10 years. What we need to see is the data for those that were on it for many years and were still on it. I would assume that's available in the actual study. It's unfortunate that they didn't mention a significant sub-group like that in the study. And of course it only looks at the easy standard blood test type of tests, not other possible risks like CVD, cancer, etc. It's also interesting that they say most patients cholesterol goes up while on the diet, but then goes back down when they go off. That is in direct contrast to a number of other studies as well as the results of many of us in the group here. >> Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is >> medically used to treat juvenile epileptic seizures. >> =============================================================== >> >> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/jhmi-hkd021610.php > Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this > really shows much about the long term safety. I believe you can get the whole study online. Then you can report back later with your concerns below. The subjects had been > on a ketogenic diet for anywhere from 16 months to 8 years and off it > for anywhere from 8 months to 14 years. So, they could have a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in direct contrast to a number of other studies as well as the results > of many of us in the group here. I doubt that you have been on the specific diet for prevention of juvenile seizures via the specific ketogenic high fat diet developed for that purpose. You probably haven't read what that diet actually consists of. While I think I know, I actually haven't read the details of that specific diet. So, while I think I know, I don't actually know. Maybe you are in that same group, but feel you have to talk anyway. > I doubt that you have been on the specific diet for prevention of > juvenile seizures via the specific ketogenic high fat diet developed for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, while I think I know, I don't actually know. Maybe you are in that > same group, but feel you have to talk anyway. Yep. The ketogenic diet for epilepsy is nothing like what low carbers eat, because it restricts protein to the minimum level possible, too, in order to avoid the glucose it provides and that worsens brain function. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Susan Thanks Susan. I also found out a little more about the cholesterol issue. As you may have written before, when one starts a reduced carbohydrate diet, it is common for the serum cholesterol to rise, and this gives rise to the false claim that "low carbohydrate diets, with all that dreaded artery clogging FAT, raise cholesterol." Anyway, the Johns Hopkins authors were reporting on this initial cholesterol rise which later resolves naturally. ====================================================================== http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children-high-fat-a nti-seizure-diet.aspx High Cholesterol Levels Drop Naturally In Children on High-Fat Anti-Seizure Diet MEDIA CONTACT: Katerina Pesheva EMAIL: epeshev1@jhmi.edu PHONE: (410) 516-4996 August 15, 2008 Elevated cholesterol levels return to normal or near normal levels over time in four out of 10 children with uncontrollable epilepsy treated with the high-fat ketogenic diet, according to results of a Johns Hopkins Children’s Center study reported in the Journal of Child Neurology. The study appears online ahead of print. The levels evened out even without changes in fat intake, researchers report. In their four-year study, the Hopkins Children’s team followed 121 epileptic children with intractable seizures on the high-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet designed to control such seizures. While most children developed high cholesterol after starting the diet, in half of them, cholesterol gradually improved returning to normal or near-normal levels, with or without modifications to their diet to reduce fat intake. In fact, researchers point out, diet modifications—including reducing total fat content or certain types of fats called saturated fats and adding nutritional supplements—reduced high cholesterol just as much as doing nothing. High cholesterol is defined as total cholesterol greater than 200 mg per deciliter of blood, bad or LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol greater than 130, triglycerides greater than 130, and good or HDL (high-density lipoprotein) lower than 35. >> SNIP There are more details at the link given above( which was one of the links in the original posting ... for those who never search for themselves..) but we can be beating a dead horse here. The original paper is online, but without appropriate membership, it is a pay access only. Serious researchers could, most likely, make arrangements with their local reference librarian in their public library to get the paper for serious research purposes. The author of "Nature vs Nurture" IIRC discussed that due to her handicap preventing travel to a University library, she did all the literature search for her book via that method. > > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Thanks Susan. Let's see, first you make a post that this high-fat ketogenic diet is long term evidence of a "low carb diet being safe". Now, you're running away from it as being nothing like what low carbers eat. Make up your mind. > I also found out a little more about the cholesterol issue. As you may > have written before, when one starts a reduced carbohydrate diet, it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anyway, the Johns Hopkins authors were reporting on this initial > cholesterol rise which later resolves naturally. > ======================================================================http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children... > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > links in the original posting ... for those who never search for > themselves..) but we can be beating a dead horse here. That's all very nice, consistent with what other LC studies have shown and MAYBE that is indeed what the researchers who wrote the DIFFERENT article you posted about meant. But this is exactly what they said about cholesterol in the article you posted about: "Most patients' cholesterol levels go up while on the diet, but are believed to return to normal thereafter. The Hopkins study now confirms that this is the case. " They had people in the study who were on the LC diet for some periods as short as 16 months and then went off it for as long as 8 years. Given that they have people that were on, then off the diet, the above statement, taken in context, sure sounds like they are saying that the cholesterol levels were high while on the LC diet and returned to normal after they went OFF the LC diet. Note that they did NOT say their cholesterol levels went up when STARTING the diet, or INITIALLY. But maybe they just can't write clearly. You could have simply made your above point in reply to my first post, instead of starting a snide attack. > The original paper is online, but without appropriate membership, it is > a pay access only. You finally figured that out, eh? >>> x-no-archive: yes >>>> I doubt that you have been on the specific diet for prevention of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > running away from it as being nothing like what low carbers eat. > Make up your mind. You perhaps missed this link in the original article -- more of the John's Hopkin's experience. Modified Atkins Diet Effectively Treats Childhood Seizures http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Modified-Atkins-Diet-Treats-Childhood-Seizures.aspx > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > >>> x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That obviously has nothing to do with you making up your mind if the research was or was not relevant to low carb. But aside from that, do you really expect everyone to go through 4 other links you posted at the end besides the one that was actually about the research study itself? And even then it doesn't change anything about what the research study under discussion stated, now, does it? The bottom line is you went on the offensive and started with the snide remarks over nothing. The comments I posted about the study were polite and reasonable. In article <a9a23f9b-836f-4b1f-bcfa-3713f7858e8a@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, > > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > > >>> x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > snide remarks over nothing. The comments I posted about the study > were polite and reasonable. Characterizing something, or someone, isn't polite and reasonable. The report is what it is for any who have the eyes to read.  Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines > In article > <a9a23f9b-836f-4b1f-bcfa-3713f7858...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > The report is what it is for any who have the eyes to read. Are you for real? This is what I posted that has caused rude and snide remarks: "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this really shows much about the long term safety. It's also interesting that they say most patients cholesterol goes up while on the diet, but then goes back down when they go off. That is in direct contrast to a number of other studies as well as the results of many of us in the group here. " So, who appointed you moderator of the group that now decides that research reports should just be posted with no commentary allowed? Nothing in there characterized something or someone. How many comments and characterizations have you made freely here, on everything, mostly replies to idiotic spam where in the process you re- post the spam and give it more visibility? And I've seen countless other people critiquing studies on a whole host of subjects here for years without getting vitriol. What exactly in my reply to Pamela's post do you think is out of line? In article <99e674fe-4ce5-495a-913f-9370dd808fe2@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <a9a23f9b-836f-4b1f-bcfa-3713f7858...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Are you for real? I believe that this is what is referred to as an ad hominem attack. > This is what I posted that has caused rude and > snide remarks: You are truly too good for this world "4". > "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this > really shows much about the long term safety. That is your privilege, but people with careers have based their professional reputations on the study. Yes, yes, I know, and John Yuu said torture was legal, but he is now paying a price. >It's also interesting > that they say most patients cholesterol goes up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > results > of many of us in the group here. " Read the last paragraph of this post,"4". > So, who appointed you moderator of the group What you can't attain with logic is also out of reach to sarcasm. > that now decides that > research reports should just be posted with no commentary allowed? You don't offer commentary, you are flogging a straw man that only exists in your head. > Nothing in there characterized something or someone. How many > comments and characterizations have you made freely here, on > everything, mostly replies to idiotic spam where in the process you re- > post the spam and give it more visibility? Déjà vu all over again. You got me there "4" ;O) > And I've seen countless > other people critiquing studies on a whole host of subjects here for > years without getting vitriol. Where is the vitriol that you refer too? All I read was some mocking of your denseness. "You didn't know what my point was in presenting the study in the first place. That is what led to the present situation." - pamela But you're not limited to facts are you "4"? > Hmmm, let's see if we can figure it out. Are we supposed to be > mindreaders? You need to be a mind reader to understand a simple declarative statement? > Last time I checked there is no rule that people here aren't free to > express opinions without reading the whole study. Vintage "4", who isn't prevented by lack of knowledge to express an opinion. > What exactly in my reply to Pamela's post do you think is out of line? I'm not here to enable your spamming, however the article was about long term safety of a ketogenic diet and it was a press release. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/jhmi-hkd021610.php "The evidence is based on a study of 101 patients ages 2 to 26 years treated with the ketogenic diet for a minimum of 16 months and for up to eight years at Hopkins Children's between 1993 and 2008. At the time of the follow-up, patients were off the diet anywhere between eight months and 14 years. Nearly 80 percent of the patients remained either seizure-free or had their seizures reduced by half. Most patients' seizures did not worsen even years after stopping the diet. Researchers caution it is possible that some effects may not show up for decades. However, the evidence, especially among patients who were off the diet for more than 10 years, suggests no long-term harm. During interviews, none of the patients reported adverse cardiovascular side effects such as heart attacks, enlargement of the heart or abnormal plaque buildup in their arteries. One patient reported having high blood pressure." http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children-hig h-fat-anti-seizure-diet.aspx "While most children developed high cholesterol after starting the diet, in half of them, cholesterol gradually improved returning to normal or near-normal levels, with or without modifications to their diet to reduce fat intake." Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines In article <wildbilly-A2C7C2.17311921022010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, For background on the Ketogenic Diet: http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/treatment_ketogenic_diet Ketogenic Diet The ketogenic diet is a special high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet that helps to control seizures in some people with epilepsy. It is prescribed by a physician and carefully monitored by a dietitian. It is more strict, with calorie, fluid, and protein measurement and occasional restriction than the modified Atkins diet, which is also used today. The name ketogenic means that it produces ketones in the body (keto = ketone, genic = producing). Ketones are formed when the body uses fat for its source of energy. Usually the body usually uses carbohydrates (such as sugar, bread, pasta) for its fuel, but because the ketogenic diet is very low in carbohydrates, fats become the primary fuel instead. Ketones are not dangerous. They can be detected in the urine, blood, and breath. Ketones are one of the more likely mechanisms of action of the diet; with higher ketone levels often leading to improved seizure control. However, there are many other theories for why the diet will work. Who will it help? Doctors usually recommend the ketogenic diet for children whose seizures have not responded to several different seizure medicines. It is particularly recommended for children with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Doctors seldom recommend the ketogenic diet for adults. However, in the limited studies that have been done, the diet seems to work just as well, although it is very restrictive for most adults. Studies are underway to evaluate the modified Atkins diet in this population. The ketogenic diet has been shown in case reports and case series to be particularly effective for some epilepsy conditions. These include infantile spasms, Rett syndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex, Dravet syndrome, Doose syndrome, and GLUT-1 deficiency. Using a formula-only ketogenic diet for infants and gastrostomy-tube fed children may lead to better compliance and possibly even improved efficacy. The diet works well for children with focal seizures, but may be less likely to lead to an immediate seizure-free result. In general, the diet can always be considered as long as there are no clear metabolic or mitochondrial reasons not to use it. What is it like? The typical ketogenic diet, called the "long-chain triglyceride diet," provides 3 to 4 grams of fat for every 1 gram of carbohydrate and protein. The dietician recommends a daily diet that contains 75 to 100 calories for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight and 1-2 grams of protein for every kilogram of body weight. If this sounds complicated, it is! That's why parents need a dietician's help. A ketogenic diet ³ratio² is the ratio of fat to carbohydrate and protein grams combined. A 4:1 ratio is more strict than a 3:1 ratio, and is typically used for most children. A 3:1 ratio is typically used for infants, adolescents, and children who require higher amounts of protein or carbohydrate for some other reason. The kinds of foods that provide fat for the ketogenic diet are butter, heavy whipping cream, mayonnaise, and oils (e.g. canola or olive). Because the amount of carbohydrate and protein in the diet have to be restricted, it is very important that the meals be prepared carefully. No other sources of carbohydrates can be eaten. (Even toothpaste might have some sugar in it!). For this reason, the ketogenic diet is supervised by a dietician. The parents and the child become very familiar with what can and cannot be eaten. What happens first? Typically the diet is started in the hospital. The child usually begins by fasting (except for water) under close medical supervision for 24 hours. For instance, the child might go into the hospital on Monday, start fasting at 6 p.m. and continue to have only water until 6 a.m. on Tuesday. The diet is started at that point, either by slowly increasing the calories or the ratio. This is the typical Hopkins protocol. There is growing evidence that fasting is probably not necessary for long-term efficacy, although does lead to quicker onset of ketosis. The primary reason for admission in most centers is to monitor for any increase in seizures on the diet, ensure all medications are carbohydrate-free, and educate the families. Does it work? Several studies have shown that the ketogenic diet does reduce or prevent seizures in many children whose seizures could not be controlled by medications. Over half of children who go on the diet have at least a 50% reduction in the number of their seizures. Some children, usually 10-15%, even become seizure-free. Children who are on the ketogenic diet continue to take seizure medicines. Some are able to take smaller doses or fewer medicines than before they started the diet, however. The time when medications can be lowered depends on the child and the comfort level of the neurologist. Evidence suggests it can be done as early as the diet initiation period safely in many circumstances. If the person goes off the diet for even one meal, it may lose its good effect. So it is very important to stick with the diet as prescribed. It can be especially hard to follow the diet 100% if there are other children at home who are on a normal diet. Small children who have free access to the refrigerator are tempted by "forbidden" foods. Parents need to work as closely as possible with a dietician. Are there any side effects? A person starting the ketogenic diet may feel sluggish for a few days after the diet is started. This can worsen if a child is sick at the same time as the diet is started. Make sure to encourage carbohydrate-free fluids during illnesses. Other side effects that might occur if the person stays on the diet for a long time are: € Kidney stones € High cholesterol levels in the blood € Dehydration € Constipation € Slowed growth or weight gain € Bone fractures Because the diet does not provide all the vitamins and minerals found in a balanced diet, the dietician will recommend vitamin and mineral supplements. The most important of these are calcium and vitamin D (to prevent thinning of the bones), iron, and folic acid. There are no anticonvulsants that should be stopped while on the diet. Topamax (topiramate) and Zonegran (zonisamide) do not have a higher risk of acidosis or kidney stones while on the diet. Depakote (valproic acid) does not lead to carnitine deficiency or other difficulties while on the diet either. Medication levels do not change while on the diet according to recent studies. How is the patient monitored over time? Early on, the doctor will usually see the child every 1-3 months. Blood and urine tests are performed to make sure there are no medical problems. The height and weight are measured to see if growth has slowed down. As the child gains weight, the diet may need to be adjusted by the dietician. Can the diet ever be stopped? If seizures have been well controlled for some time, usually 2 years, the doctor might suggest going off the diet. Usually, the patient is gradually taken off the diet over several months or even longer. Just as happens if seizure medicines are stopped suddenly, seizures may become much worse if the ketogenic diet is stopped all at once. Children usually continue to take seizure medicines after they go off the diet. In many situations, the diet has led to significant, but not total, seizure control. Families may choose to remain on the ketogenic diet for many years in these situations. Where can I find out more information about the diet? Other than the internet, there are several books about the ketogenic diet available. One is The Ketogenic Diet: A Treatment for Children and Others with Epilepsy, by Drs. Freeman and Kossoff, which discusses the Johns Hopkins approach and experience. The Charlie Foundation at www.charliefoundation.org and Matthew¹s Friends at www.matthewsfriends.org are parent-run organizations for support. ----- Some recipes: http://www.charliefoundation.org/recipes Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines >>>>>Other side effects that might occur if the person stays on the diet for a long time are: € Kidney stones € High cholesterol levels in the blood € Dehydration € Constipation € Slowed growth or weight gain € Bone fractures<<<< Maybe Doug will stop comparing it to the typical low carb diet NOW??? Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Susan Huh, I didn't see that part, or is this a running gag? Far out, Doug, you be da man. Yo' bad, dawg. How long do it take you to huff a can of Crisco, anyway? Then Wildbilly observed, some of your nagging doubts, Susan, have been excluded from concern. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/jhmi-hkd021610.php "Despite its temporary side effects, we have always suspected that the ketogenic diet is relatively safe long term, and we now have proof," says senior investigator Eric Kossoff, M.D., a pediatric neurologist and director of the ketogenic diet program at Hopkins Children's. "Our study should help put to rest some of the nagging doubts about the long-term safety of the ketogenic diet," he adds. The evidence is based on a study of 101 patients ages 2 to 26 years treated with the ketogenic diet for a minimum of 16 months and for up to eight years at Hopkins Children's between 1993 and 2008. At the time of the follow-up, patients were off the diet anywhere between eight months and 14 years. Nearly 80 percent of the patients remained either seizure-free or had their seizures reduced by half. Most patients' seizures did not worsen even years after stopping the diet. Researchers caution it is possible that some effects may not show up for decades. However, the evidence, especially among patients who were off the diet for more than 10 years, suggests no long-term harm. During interviews, none of the patients reported adverse cardiovascular side effects such as heart attacks, enlargement of the heart or abnormal plaque buildup in their arteries. One patient reported having high blood pressure. Only two of the 101 patients reported kidney stones after stopping the diet, the same rate found in the general population not treated with the ketogenic diet, the researchers say. None of the 25 patients who had liver and kidney function tests had abnormal results. Among the 26 patients who had their cholesterol tested, the average level was 157 milligrams per deciliter of blood (less than 200 is considered normal), with three of the 26 having abnormal levels. Most patients' cholesterol levels go up while on the diet, but are believed to return to normal thereafter. The Hopkins study now confirms that this is the case." Most patients older than 18 at the time of the study had normal body mass index of 22 on average (25 and below is considered normal). And most of them were within a few inches of their expected heights, based on their parents' heights. Patients 18 years and younger at the time of the study were, on average, in the 25th percentile for height and in the 36th percentile for weight for their age. While this is below average, the investigators say, it is also much higher than the usual 5thto-10th percentile while on the diet. "We have every reason to believe that most children will start catching up once they are off the diet as they grow up because this is what we see in older former patients," Kossoff says. Contrary to the fear of many parents, the diet does not appear to alter patients' food preferences, the researchers say. Only 8 percent of those in the study said they continued to eat predominantly high-fat foods. Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines > In article <7ue8qmF41...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Far out, Doug, you be da man. Yo' bad, dawg. How long do it take you to > huff a can of Crisco, anyway? I would suggest that it is you who is part of the longest running gag. Replying to every bit of silly spam that shows up here and re- posting it goes a long way to shooting your credibility. And now, like pamela before you, YOU start an attack on Doug for no reason at all. For the record, here's what Doug posted: "Controlling protein intake is well within the bounds of the common low carb plans. Many low carbers never bother to try restricting protein but some do and there's been plenty of discussion of the topic on ASDLC over the years. " Perfectly reasonable. But then you wouldn't even know what has been posted here over the years, because you only showed up fairly recently. The most bizarre part of this is that first pamela makes a post headlined with: "Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is medically used to treat juvenile epileptic seizures. " And now she claims the diet is NOT relevant to LC. So, why the hell make the post then? Obviously she can't make up her mind. And you now chime in from the peanut gallery and launch an attack on Doug for no reason at all. It's a sad day when this newsgroup has degenerated to the point where established regulars that have been here for many years can't make some simple comments on a research study without being attacked. BTW, I see you still haven't learned how to trim posts either. In article <12e03c1a-f9fc-43cb-8283-72daf340a937@c5g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, > > In article <7ue8qmF41...@mid.individual.net>, > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > like pamela before you, YOU start an attack on Doug for no reason at > all. Check with Doug first, bozo, and ask him if he felt attacked. Doug is my mentor. Do you know anyone in this group? > BTW, I see you still haven't learned how to trim posts either. And I see that you are still illiterate. Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines > Wildbilly quoted: > > > Other side effects that might occur if the person stays on the > > diet for a long time are: > > Maybe Doug will stop comparing it to the typical low carb diet NOW??? Funny and artistic poke, but no. Thanks for driving me to better understanding of low carb by constantly challenging my statements. I've long railed that folks new to low carb tend to do it too extremely and that if you actually read the directions for any of the popular plans what is written is milder than what many do. On the one hand pointing out problems with following an extremist version long term falls into support for my stance. On the other hand studies that show low term low carbing being safe are beneficial to the field. > In article > <99e674fe-4ce5-495a-913f-9370dd808...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > I believe that this is what is referred to as an ad hominem attack. Wrong again. What you actually posted was: "Characterizing something, or someone, isn't polite and reasonable. The report is what it is for any who have the eyes to read. " The point was that the comments I first posted on the study were polite and reasonable and that PAMELA then got snide with me for making those comments about the study. Are we now to operate under the rules that no one here should be allowed to make any comments about research studies because you and pamela say so? Perhaps because you haven't been here long, you haven't noticed, but people here have commented freely on studies all the time. I'd also suggest you learn the correct usage of the term ad hominem, because clearly it does not apply here. An example of an ad hominem attack would be to claim the study is bogus because wildbilly says it's cool and he's the village idiot. > > "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this > > really shows much about the long term safety. > > That is your privilege, but people with careers have based their > professional reputations on the study. Uh huh. So now we're all supposed to simply sit in silence and awe of those professionals and not make any comments about any study according to you? Geez, I see you freely shooting your mouth off here all the time about everything, mostly sensless replies to spam. > You don't offer commentary, you are flogging a straw man that only > exists in your head. I did offer commentary: "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this really shows much about the long term safety. The subjects had been on a ketogenic diet for anywhere from 16 months to 8 years and off it for anywhere from 8 months to 14 years. So, they could have a significant number of people who were on it for a couple years, then off it for 10 years. What we need to see is the data for those that were on it for many years and were still on it. It's also interesting that they say most patients cholesterol goes up while on the diet, but then goes back down when they go off. That is in direct contrast to a number of other studies as well as the results of many of us in the group here. " Those remarks were polite, very reasonable and consistent with thousands of posts made here by regulars over the years about all kinds of studies. Why do they trouble you so? Compare that to your own senseless comments on most of the spam that comes in here. Also you need to go look up the definition of strawman. I see a trend here. When you don't have any facts to make your case, like a lot of loons, in desperation you start yelling "ad hominem, strawman!" > > What exactly in my reply to Pamela's post do you think is out of line? > > I'm not here to enable your spamming, however the article was about long > term safety of a ketogenic diet and it was a press release. In other words, nothing I stated in that post is out of line. And now the clown that replies to every bit of spam here and re-posts it, says I'm spamming? In article <54dc1cc8-9cd7-465d-9ae5-eb8b7f3cd92e@j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <99e674fe-4ce5-495a-913f-9370dd808...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > "Characterizing something, or someone, isn't polite and reasonable. > The report is what it is for any who have the eyes to read. " Is there an echo in here? What I actually said is 7 lines above your repost. Why do you feel the need to just fill up space with redundancies? > The point was that the comments I first posted on the study were > polite and reasonable and that PAMELA then got snide with me for > making those comments about the study. Are we now to operate under > the rules that no one here should be allowed to make any comments > about research studies because you and pamela say so? Snide? "4": "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this really shows much about the long term safety." Pamela: "I believe you can get the whole study online. Then you can report back later with your concerns below." Billy: Aren't we sooo sensitive? So where is the snide remark, "4"? There wasn't any. You were either trying to cover-up the fact that you were asleep at the wheel, or you were just looking for an opening to start your spamming. There are damn few people who post important information in this newsgroup, and to have you giving one of them crap isn't going to help. "4": "Last time I checked there is no rule that people here aren't free to express opinions without reading the whole study. Billy: So what you are saying is that you don't need information to have an opinion? That is just so "4". You complain that the whole study wasn't in a news release but at the same time you were too lazy to read the follow up URLs to the study. "4": (Fri, 19 Feb 2010) . . . "do you really expect everyone to go through 4 other links you posted at the end besides the one that was actually about the research study itself? And even then it doesn't change anything about what the research study under discussion stated, now, does it? Billy: The 4 links were additional information on the study. If you want to blame someone for your ignorance and laziness, then blame Ekaterina Pesheva, the contact person for the press release. No, the links don't change anything about the press release, but if you had read them, (if you could read them) it would have answered the questions that you have been babbling about. Lastly, ketogenic diets are to low carb diets, as mice are to mammals. Ketogenic diets (low carb and low protein) are a SUB-group of low carb diets. Does that answer your question, or do I need to get crayons and draw you a picture? > Perhaps > because you haven't been here long, you haven't noticed, but people > here have commented freely on studies all the time. I'd also suggest > you learn the correct usage of the term ad hominem, because clearly it > does not apply here. Billy: (Fri, 19 Feb 2010) The report is what it is for any who have the eyes to read. "4": (Fri, 19 Feb 2010) Are you for real? Billy: (Fri, 21 Feb 2010) I believe that this is what is referred to as an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem: 1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. Billy: Clearly it DOES apply, so why don't you deal just with the facts, and leave the innuendoes in you holster? > > > "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this > > > really shows much about the long term safety. Billy: It's a freakin' press release, "4". You want to read the whole study, but were even too lazy to even read the additional links in the article, which would have answered most of your complaints about the article. > > That is your privilege, but people with careers have based their > > professional reputations on the study. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > according to you? Geez, I see you freely shooting your mouth off > here all the time about everything, mostly sensless replies to spam. Billy: Yes, here I am again, responding to an intellectually lazy person, or a spammer. Only you know the answer to that one, "4". In any event, I usually give citations to support my arguments. All you give is a misreading of the record. You don't offer commentary, you are flogging a straw man that only exists in your head. > I did offer commentary: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > significant number of people who were on it for a couple years, then > off it for 10 years. Billy: So now you are offering speculation. I mean, what if the group whose cholesterol returned to normal were from Mars? Did they check to verify that the test participants were from Mars? It is pointless to continue until we know that all the participants were homo sapiens. Learn to deal with the facts before you delve into speculation "4". > What we need to see is the data for those > that were on it for many years and were still on it. > > It's also interesting that they say most patients cholesterol goes up > while on the diet, but then goes back down when they go off. Billy:(sigh) Did you know that there are links attached to the press release, "4"? Many of the participants had their cholesterol go down DURING the study. ----- While most children developed high cholesterol after starting the diet, in half of them, cholesterol gradually improved returning to normal or near-normal levels, with or without modifications to their diet to reduce fat intake. http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children-hig h-fat-anti-seizure-diet.aspx > That > is > in direct contrast to a number of other studies as well as the > results > of many of us in the group here. " Billy: Then you wouldn't mind sharing a few citations to support your position, would you "4"? > Those remarks were polite, very reasonable and consistent with > thousands of posts made here by regulars over the years about all > kinds of studies. Why do they trouble you so? They don't. You, and your spamming for attention, do. > Compare that to > your own senseless comments on most of the spam that comes in here. > Also you need to go look up the definition of strawman. I see a > trend here. When you don't have any facts to make your case, like a > lot of loons, in desperation you start yelling "ad hominem, > strawman!" See above for definition of ad hominem. Straw man: € a sham argument set up to be defeated. --- Sham as in your misrepresentation of what was stated in the press releases. > > > What exactly in my reply to Pamela's post do you think is out of line? > > > > I'm not here to enable your spamming, however the article was about long > > term safety of a ketogenic diet and it was a press release. > > In other words, nothing I stated in that post is out of line. See above to give the lie to that statement. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your insensitivity, i.e., no sense, no feeling. You are all alone again, "4". Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines > > The point was that the comments I first posted on the study were > > polite and reasonable and that PAMELA then got snide with me for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Pamela: "I believe you can get the whole study online. Then you can > report back later with your concerns below." In another shameless attempt to obfuscate, you left out the rest of what pamela said in that same post where all the nastiness started: "I doubt that you have been on the specific diet for prevention of juvenile seizures via the specific ketogenic high fat diet developed for that purpose. You probably haven't read what that diet actually consists of. While I think I know, I actually haven't read the details of that specific diet. So, while I think I know, I don't actually know. Maybe you are in that same group, but feel you have to talk anyway. " And that is indeed snide. Long live the truth. > Billy: Aren't we sooo sensitive? So where is the snide remark, "4"? > There wasn't any. You were either trying to cover-up the fact that you > were asleep at the wheel, or you were just looking for an opening to > start your spamming. It's re-posted for you again, right above. As to who's soooo sensitive, I would say it's pamela because she attacked me for simply making some reasonable and polite comments about a study she posted. The way she acted, you'd think the study were her own. > There are damn few people who post important information in this > newsgroup, and to have you giving one of them crap isn't going to help. I wasn't giving anyone "crap". I made perfectly reasonable and polite comments as others here do on just about every research study that is posted. YOU and pamela for some reason, now think that I shouldn't be free to do that. Yet, I've seen you comment on just about everything here, most of it spam. > "4": "Last time I checked there is no rule that people here aren't free > to express opinions without reading the whole study. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wasn't in a news release but at the same time you were too lazy to read > the follow up URLs to the study. Wrong again. I never complained that all the data was not in a news release because I know it never is. And if you paid attention in the newsgroup you would know that people here make comments about particular studies without having access to the whole study all the time. Doug even commented on that. Should I go back and find all the examples where people did that and didn't get jumped on by the likes of pamela or you? And if you ever went looking for studies that appear in medical or scientific journals instead of reading spam, you'd know why. You have to pay to access just about all of them. That indeed is the case with this one, which pamela figured out AFTER she snidely said I should go read it. > "4": (Fri, 19 Feb 2010) . . . "do you really expect everyone to go > through 4 other links you posted at the end besides the one that was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Billy: The 4 links were additional information on the study. Wrong again. Three of the links were to OTHER studies of other aspects of a high-fat ketogenic diet. Daily Potassium Citrate Wards Off Kidney Stones in Seizure Patients in High-Fat Diet http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Daily_Potassium_Citrate_Wards_Off_Kid... High Cholesterol Levels Drop Naturally in Children on High-Fat Anti-Seizure Diet http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children... Modified Atkins Diet Effectively Treats Childhood Seizures http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Modified-Atkins-Diet-Treats-Childhood... Besides not being the SAME study, those obviously have NOTHING to do with the long term safety of the diet. Or whether the study has anything relevant to say about the safety of a LC diet at all. In fact, confused pamela later made her whole post look meaningless, because now she is arguing that the diet isn't representative of any LC diet. The fourth link was a cute story about a little girl who benefited from the diet. "Carson Harris-A patient story " It was merely an anecdotal patient story, but apparently you can't tell the difference between that and a study. >If you want > to blame someone for your ignorance and laziness, then blame Ekaterina > Pesheva, the contact person for the press release. No, the links don't > change anything about the press release, but if you had read them, (if > you could read them) it would have answered the questions that you have > been babbling about. Oh really? We know that in the study of 100 patients, some were on this diet for a short as 16 months and as long as 8 years. And then when they were measured for follow-up, they had ALL been OFF the diet for anywhere from 8 months to 14 years. Does anything there address my issues that this does not seem an appropriate way to measure the safety of LC? Why did they have to wait 8 years to follow-up? Why did they have to wait at all? It's as if they are saying LC has to be bad while you're on it, we can only hope you return to normal when you go off it. If you had someone on the diet for 3 years and off if for 14 years, did anyone really expect their blood-work 14 years later to have any correlation to the time on the ketogenic diet as opposed to whatever crap they've been eating for the other 11 years? Does it excuse this misleading statement in the press release: "Most patients' cholesterol levels go up while on the diet, but are believed to return to normal thereafter. The Hopkins study now confirms that this is the case. " Note that since the patients were ALL off the ketogenic diet at the time of follow-up, interpreting the above statement to mean that chol returned to normal AFTER they were off the diet is very reasonable. Perhaps that's not what they meant, but if it isn't then at the very least it's very misleading." >Lastly, ketogenic diets are to low carb diets, as > mice are to mammals. Ketogenic diets (low carb and low protein) are a > SUB-group of low carb diets. Does that answer your question, or do I > need to get crayons and draw you a picture? You need to take that up with pamela. She is the one that made the post claiming the study was relevant to the safety of LC dieting. She and perhaps you are now arguing that it isn't relative. So, make up your minds. > > Perhaps > > because you haven't been here long, you haven't noticed, but people [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Billy: Clearly it DOES apply, so why don't you deal just with the facts, > and leave the innuendoes in you holster? Show me anywhere in my first comments on the study where I expressed emotion. It was all based on reason and logic. > > > > "Without seeing the actual data, unfortunately, I don't think this > > > > really shows much about the long term safety. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > article, which would have answered most of your complaints about the > article. Yes, it's a press release Billy. And last time I checked it's very common here for people to express their comments about what we see in the press releases. Spend some time reading real posts instead of spam and you'll see them. > > > That is your privilege, but people with careers have based their > > > professional reputations on the study. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In any event, I usually give citations to support my arguments. All you > give is a misreading of the record. LOL Most of your posts don't even have an argument, let alone citations. They are one line moronic replies to spam. > You don't offer commentary, you are flogging a straw man that only > exists in your head. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > continue until we know that all the participants were homo sapiens. > Learn to deal with the facts before you delve into speculation "4". It's not speculation, it is the facts that we know from the press release. > > What we need to see is the data for those > > that were on it for many years and were still on it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > release, "4"? Many of the participants had their cholesterol go down > DURING the study. Billy, you don't even realize that no where does it say that those studies are the same. Show me where it says the people tested and data used for the study pamela cited are one and the same as those in the other studies. Apparently, YOU are too lazy to read the links or you would have seen that the cholesterol study in particular consisted of 121 patients that they followed for 4 years. > ----- > While most children developed high cholesterol after starting the diet, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Billy: Then you wouldn't mind sharing a few citations to support your > position, would you "4"? And now you've hit a new low, you lying weasel. You've cut and pasted to make it look like the above was in sequence, when it was not. First let's set the context correctly. The press release stated that ALL the patients on the ketogenic diet had been off it from months to 14 years before the follow-up testing. Now let's look at the sequence of my comments: Study: "Most patients' cholesterol levels go up while on the diet, but are believed to return to normal thereafter. The Hopkins study now confirms that this is the case. " My polite and reasoned commentary: "It's also interesting that they say most patients cholesterol goes up while on the diet, but then goes back down when they go off. That is in direct contrast to a number of other studies as well as the results of many of us in the group here. " Now why don't you go run along and find some nice spam and post some more inane remarks there? In article <wildbilly-A2C7C2.17311921022010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children-hig > h-fat-anti-seizure-diet.aspx > "While most children developed high cholesterol after starting the diet, > in half of them, cholesterol gradually improved returning to normal or > near-normal levels, with or without modifications to their diet to > reduce fat intake." What me worry about cholesterol? Whyfor. For example, the body has no sensors for cholesterol, if it were important to regulate it like glucose, there would be sensors, and there are not. Cholesterol levels are epiphenomenal, unless they are too low which leads to death quickly. SignatureA computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. > In article > <wildbilly-A2C7C2.17311921022010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What me worry about cholesterol? Whyfor. For example, the body has no > sensors for cholesterol, > if it were important to regulate it like > glucose, there would be sensors, and there are not. Logic is only as good as its premise, which is what the above seems to be, a premise. Personally, I have trouble with a lack of evidence being construed as proof. > Cholesterol levels are epiphenomenal, unless they are too low which > leads to death quickly. Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines That lack of evidence is exactly why I don't worry about cholesterol. The purported evidence was created to sell statins. | Logic is only as good as its premise, which is what the above seems to | be, a premise. Personally, I have trouble with a lack of evidence | being construed as proof. > That lack of evidence is exactly why I don't worry about cholesterol. The > purported evidence was created to sell statins. > > | Logic is only as good as its premise, which is what the above seems to > | be, a premise. Personally, I have trouble with a lack of evidence > | being construed as proof. No, the cholesterol levels where one of the few things that doctors could measure, that may relate to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). What we apparently know is that there is a subset of LDL called Very Low Density Lipids (VLDL), which transport triglycerides, not cholesterol. VLDL seems to be a good indicator of CHD. What role "normal" LDL plays in CHD is anybody's guess. Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines >> That lack of evidence is exactly why I don't worry about cholesterol. The >> purported evidence was created to sell statins. > > No, the cholesterol levels where one of the few things that doctors > could measure, that may relate to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). So they used it as much as they could, which is well beyond it's actual predictive capability. > What we > apparently know is that there is a subset of LDL called Very Low Density > Lipids (VLDL), which transport triglycerides, not cholesterol. VLDL > seems to be a good indicator of CHD. I call it the body's fat transportation method. A bit simple minded but it works. Any dieting method that triggers loss of body fat reduces VHDL. Any dieting method that causes the body to burn fat as its primary fuel is very efficient at sweeping fat out of the blood. Conveniently ketosis is when the body burns fat as its primary fuel. Ketosis isn't the only way to burn fat as fuel but it is an effective way. At different times there have been different claims as to what the single most common result of Atkins is. One is reduced blood pressure. One is reduced VHDL. Ask a lot of low carbers and you'll find both happen even more often than weight loss. Doctors have a lot invested in calling fat evil. Dr Atkins mounted a program of "It was all a big fat lie" and "I was right all along and you were wrong all along". It triggered a personality conflict that made him as unpopular while he was alive as Galileo. But he was in fact correct. It's coming out as the facts slowly but surely. > >> That lack of evidence is exactly why I don't worry about cholesterol. The > >> purported evidence was created to sell statins. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it works. Any dieting method that triggers loss of body fat reduces > VHDL. I think this is a typo. It should read VLDL, shouldn't it? > Any dieting method that causes the body to burn fat as its > primary fuel is very efficient at sweeping fat out of the blood. This whole thing about protein eliciting an insulin response has been very disturbing though. Insulin triggers lipoprotein lipase, which in turn disassembles triglycerides for transport through the cell wall for fat deposition. Yeah, I still don't have my head around it yet. > Conveniently ketosis is when the body burns fat as its primary fuel. > Ketosis isn't the only way to burn fat as fuel but it is an effective [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > him as unpopular while he was alive as Galileo. But he was in fact > correct. It's coming out as the facts slowly but surely. As so explicitly shown by Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health ~ Gary Taubes http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/14000334 62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267036694&sr=1-1 Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines >> I call it the body's fat transportation method. A bit simple minded but >> it works. Any dieting method that triggers loss of body fat reduces >> VHDL. > > I think this is a typo. It should read VLDL, shouldn't it? Thanks for the spelling correction. >> Any dieting method that causes the body to burn fat as its >> primary fuel is very efficient at sweeping fat out of the blood. > > This whole thing about protein eliciting an insulin response has been > very disturbing though. I think the idea is that excess protein can't be stored in any significant quanity so it gets burned to create glucose. That glucose should be associated with the longer insulin release if I understand the process correctly. > Insulin triggers lipoprotein lipase, which in > turn disassembles triglycerides for transport through the cell wall for > fat deposition. Chemical processes use a rate that's based on concentrations. Because fat is concentrated in fat cells the process of storing new fat into fat cells is slow no matter how big the fat cells grow. Because the liver burns fat using the 3 path process the concentration of fat in the liver is low so the rate is fast. That's got to be overly simplistic because the liver stores plenty of fat. There's no way it can be as concentrated as the fat in fat cells so think I need to view that as relative concentration. VLDL -> fat cell, slow process because the fat cells keep the fat and thus the concentration goes up and up. Thus VLDL levels are high while fat is being gained. VLDL -> liver cell while in ketosis, fast process because the fat bound to the VLDL gets consumed completely and the concentration stays down. Thus VLDL levels are low while fat is being burned. It's also simple minded because there are free fatty acids and free fats. VLDL is not the only fat transportation method and fat transportation is not the only use for VLDL. > I think the idea is that excess protein can't be stored in any > significant quanity so it gets burned to create glucose. That glucose > should be associated with the longer insulin release if I understand the > process correctly. It's a long, slow, inefficient conversion of about 58% of dietary protein to glucose, hence a long, slow insulin response. I can't imagine why anyone would worry about this; it's sudden insulin spikes that dysregulate endocrine/metabolic function and the harms of hyperinsulinemia. The insulin release from protein is the kind that promotes homeostasis. Susan > It's a long, slow, inefficient conversion of about 58% of dietary > protein to glucose, hence a long, slow insulin response. Someone posted before that a high protein meal can cause more insulin release than a high carb meal. I thought you posted that. Sudden changes in insulin levels matter more but total insulin release is not irrelevant. > I can't imagine why anyone would worry about this; That fits with your prior posting history. You also can't imagine why anyone would want to use ketosis as a tool either. Total insulin level will turn off ketosis. Ketosis is an easily detected flag that gives a good idea about status of fat loss for folks on some low carb plans. You don't accept the use of ketosis therefore you don't get interest in ways other than carbs to turn ketosis on or off either. When you're on a plan that tells you to count carb grams, the fact that excess dietary protein gets converted to glucose means excess dietary protein counts as carbs, sort of. In a recent discussion someone went into ketosis by cutting protein and keeping their carb count the same. The net difference was that 58% slow conversion of excess dietary protein to glucose. It's interesting more than it's worrisome. And it points to useful strategies that are not popular among most low carbers. > Someone posted before that a high protein meal can cause more insulin > release than a high carb meal. I thought you posted that. Sudden > changes in insulin levels matter more but total insulin release is not > irrelevant. I posted it. And it's not "high protein" it's protein, period. It stimulates more insulin release than carbs, but not higher levels, just longer sustained release. This is why protein is so good for glucose and weight control. >> I can't imagine why anyone would worry about this; > > That fits with your prior posting history. You also can't imagine why > anyone would want to use ketosis as a tool either. That's total fabrication by you. I don't see why anyone would bother using Ketostix. I use ketosis in my own health management, daily, I advocate it, always have. What I don't advocate is measuring ketonuria and confusing it for effective dieting and weight loss. >Total insulin level > will turn off ketosis. Yeah, that's why all those high protein, low carb dieters can't achieve or maintain ketosis, huh? If one does not overeat, one will use the fuel instead of stuffing excess into fat cells. Ketosis is an easily detected flag that gives a > good idea about status of fat loss for folks on some low carb plans. > You don't accept the use of ketosis therefore you don't get interest in > ways other than carbs to turn ketosis on or off either. See above. You have no idea what you're talking about. I live in ketosis for health, not weight loss reasons. > When you're on a plan that tells you to count carb grams, the fact that > excess dietary protein gets converted to glucose means excess dietary > protein counts as carbs, sort of. No, it does not, because glucose from protein doesn't budge serum glucose except in type 1 diabetes. Hence, no hyperinsulinemia. Insulin is good, hyperinsulinemia is bad. Hyperinsulinemia lowers cortisol binding globulin and inhibits steroid synthesis in the adrenals. The pituitary goes nuts sending out signals for more since CBG isn't delivering to cells, and thus you end up with excess cortisol stimulation, which causes glucose elevations and upper body fat storage. But low and slow insulin release does not. > In a recent discussion someone went > into ketosis by cutting protein and keeping their carb count the same. Ketosis, or ketonuria? one has no relation to the other. > The net difference was that 58% slow conversion of excess dietary > protein to glucose. You realize it's up to 58%, not absolutely 58%? Susan >>> I can't imagine why anyone would worry about this; > >> That fits with your prior posting history. You also can't imagine why >> anyone would want to use ketosis as a tool either. > > That's total fabrication by you. Not if you read your next two statements. Denial on your part doesn't make it a fabrication on my part. > I don't see why anyone would bother > using Ketostix. I use ketosis in my own health management, daily, I > advocate it, always have. You don't see it because you don't accept that it measures something woth controlling. > What I don't advocate is measuring ketonuria and confusing it for > effective dieting and weight loss. And you use a common overlap of the words ketosis and ketonuria to continue being confused and in denial. Got it. >>Total insulin level >> will turn off ketosis. > > Yeah, that's why all those high protein, low carb dieters can't achieve > or maintain ketosis, huh? You're too smart to have that level of negative reading comprehension. You are chosing denial to oppose observations. > Ketosis, or ketonuria? one has no relation to the other. Uh huh. You don't like that folks use the terms interchangably so you are negative about any system that uses the tool. >> The net difference was that 58% slow conversion of excess dietary >> protein to glucose. > > You realize it's up to 58%, not absolutely 58%? Sure. I usually write 50ish%. This time I quoted your number instead. >>>> I can't imagine why anyone would worry about this; >>> That fits with your prior posting history. You also can't imagine why [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You don't see it because you don't accept that it measures something > woth controlling. You're either totally disingenuous, or you have a reading comprehension problem. >> What I don't advocate is measuring ketonuria and confusing it for >> effective dieting and weight loss. > > And you use a common overlap of the words ketosis and ketonuria to > continue being confused and in denial. Got it. Your obsession with excreted ketones vs. serum ketones is a waste of energy, and maybe just a sign you like playing with pee too much. >>> Total insulin level >>> will turn off ketosis. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Uh huh. You don't like that folks use the terms interchangably so you > are negative about any system that uses the tool. They're not interchangeable. Anyone who spends five minutes reading knows that ketones show up in serum way before urine, and often exclusively. >>> The net difference was that 58% slow conversion of excess dietary >>> protein to glucose. >> You realize it's up to 58%, not absolutely 58%? > > Sure. I usually write 50ish%. This time I quoted your number instead. Not 50%ish; UP TO 58%. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Susan Look, I have respect for you both, but could you dial back the attitude and emphasize the content (stuff related to low carb dieting), or should I just get a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show? Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines > In article <7unjgnFt2...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ohhh, poor sensitive Billy, who still has the mistaken idea that he's the moderator. In this same thread when I got jumped on for making some polite and reasonable comments about the ketogenic diet did you call for decorum and reason? Why of course not, you just piled on too. Seems some people here can dish it out but they can't take it. As for respect, coming from the village idiot that replies to every bit of spam that happens to get posted here, it ain;t worth spit. > Look, I have respect for you both, but could you dial back the attitude Nope. Susan and I have beat on each other's attitudes for probably 3-4 times longer than you've been around. It's a part of our charm or a reason to filter our posts depending on perspective. If you want seriously obnoxious check out Lyle MacDonald some time. He knows more about low carbing than most 20-30 biochemistry PhDs put together and he's got, let's call it confidence, yeah confidence, to match. > and emphasize the content (stuff related to low carb dieting), Content has come from it over the years. > or should I just get a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show? I say go with devilled eggs. They taste better, are more filling, and are lower carb. Even better would be raw cauliflower with a little bit of ranch dressing to dip it in. If you make your own ranch dressing you can double the garlic and put in some finely diced kale. Or maybe a Caesar dressing with a ton of garlic and just a touch of anchovies. And play violin music in the background. Come to think of it chello music should work better. String quartets rule so go for both. > > Look, I have respect for you both, but could you dial back the attitude > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And play violin music in the background. Come to think of it chello > music should work better. String quartets rule so go for both. Uh, I'm more of a beer, wurst, and polka kinda guy. Having said that, you may want to check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xz-pGzDyw0&feature=related Your attitudes may seem good on the inside, but from the outside they aren't very attractive IMHO. If I just want attitude, I can go over to tx.guns. Signature"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines From the Protein Power blog: "First, are test strips which detect acetoacetic acid in urine a good measure of ketosis in general? Are they too specific? Too inaccurate?" *******************Yes, the strips are fairly accurate as to the amount of ketones IN THE URINE (emphasis mine).************** "But there is individual variability in terms of getting rid of ketones. Since ketones can be discharged in both the breath and the urine, some people have a tendency to prefer (based on their own biochemical makeup – not by their conscious choice) to eliminate them more via the breath than the urine. ****These people can be in heavy ketosis and not show much in their urine.**** " Susan >> The ketogenic diet for epilepsy is nothing like what low carbers eat, >> because it restricts protein to the minimum level possible, too, in >> order to avoid the glucose it provides and that worsens brain function. Controlling protein intake is well within the bounds of the common low carb plans. Many low carbers never bother to try restricting protein but some do and there's been plenty of discussion of the topic on ASDLC over the years. The book Protein Power by Drs Eades and its follow-on books give directions to find your minimum protein grams. While most low carbers get a lot more protein grams than that minimum some try to use that number as the target. Get as close to it as practical rather than treating it as a minimum. Fill in the rest of the calories with fat grams. This turns out to work nicely as a stall busting strategy. It's not a common stratgey but it is done. Susan has described the insulin released from high protein meals and I suspect that's why limiting protein works so nicely as a stall buster. If the diet prescribed for epileptics is lower than the minimum grams suggested by the Eades then it requires care chosing amino acid grams. But it doesn't change the dynamic already well know by folks who try stall buster strategies. > I also found out a little more about the cholesterol issue. As you may > have written before, when one starts a reduced carbohydrate diet, it is > common for the serum cholesterol to rise, and this gives rise to the > false claim that "low carbohydrate diets, with all that dreaded artery > clogging FAT, raise cholesterol." It's not hard to find that out. The initial rise is reported in at least two editions of the Atkins books. The standard expectation is total cholesterol rising early on. In the 1993/1999 editions he reports that 6+ months in 80% see better numbers than before they started. In the 2001 edition he reports that 2+ months in most (50%+) see better numbers than before they started. Given that the Atkins books are standards in the field (no matter their lack of science they contain abundant reports of what happens while low carbing) knowing their content is expected by anyone doing studies on the topic. That's why there was a comment about cholesterol levels in the article - It is a known given by all who study the results of low carbing that cholesterol numbers go up early and then settle back down again. Within 2 months they are back down for 50% of low carbers. Within 6 months they are back down for 80% of low carbers. One conclusion is that 20% of the population doesn't benefit from low carbing. Another conclusion is that a study that says total cholesterol levels go down after stopping shows either bias or ignorance on the part of the scientists who condusted the study. In a retrospective meta-study it discusses an existing bias in the field rather than any one scientist. > Anyway, the Johns Hopkins authors were reporting on this initial > cholesterol rise which later resolves naturally. Yet they don't mention whether it goes down natural while low carbing (a known standard result by all who pay attention to the results of low carbers) or whether it goes down after low carbing is stopped (showing an important bias aimed at satifying the anti-low-carb folks). > ====================================================================== > http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/high-cholesterol-levels-drop-children-high-fat-a nti-seizure-diet.aspx [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hopkins Children’s Center study reported in the Journal of Child > Neurology. The study appears online ahead of print. Four out of ten is lower than the observed results by folks doing less carefully controlled low carb diets. The time scales involved in this study are important. > The levels evened out even without changes in fat intake, researchers > report. Check. Standard issue low carbing strategy as well. > In their four-year study, the Hopkins Children’s team followed 121 > epileptic children with intractable seizures on the high-fat, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > near-normal levels, with or without modifications to their diet to > reduce fat intake. Now it's half not 40%. Is that a change in number of significant digits or a change int he number of months into the study? From other low carb dieters we already know that the half number happens at 2 months in. > In fact, researchers point out, diet modifications—including reducing > total fat content or certain types of fats called saturated fats and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lipoprotein) cholesterol greater than 130, triglycerides greater than > 130, and good or HDL (high-density lipoprotein) lower than 35. Mixing data points. The numbers based on lots low low carbers are known. It's interesting that changing the ratios of fatty acid types is beneficial, but that's also nothing new to folks who have read the common books in the field. Types of fat is one of the things controlled by some but not by most low carbers. > The original paper is online, but without appropriate membership, it is > a pay access only. So folks here mine the abstract. Check. > Serious researchers ... know the content of the books in the field, including the ones that report actual results but that don't have valid science. > could, most likely, make > arrangements with their local reference librarian in their public > library to get the paper for serious research purposes. The author of > "Nature vs Nurture" IIRC discussed that due to her handicap preventing > travel to a University library, she did all the literature search for > her book via that method. I've travelled to local universities to look stuff up. It works great. The bandwidth of a human librarian is *very* high compared to the bandwidth of my screen at home. ;^) > >> The ketogenic diet for epilepsy is nothing like what low carbers eat, > >> because it restricts protein to the minimum level possible, too, in [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > carbers) or whether it goes down after low carbing is stopped (showing > an important bias aimed at satifying the anti-low-carb folks). Exactly. Thank you Doug. I think it's actually worse than what you say above because they said "Most patients' cholesterol levels go up while on the diet, but are believed to return to normal thereafter." And actually, re-reading it, ALL the people in the study were first on the diet and then off it at the time of the followup evaluation. Given that, I think it very reasonable to take that statement to mean that cholesterol improved when they went off the diet. That's what I took it to mean and hence my comment. Additionally, the statement is actually implicitly stupid. They did the study, so why the use of the word "believed". Either their cholesterol was normal at the end of the study or not, belief shouldn't be a factor. What I still don't understand is why I got all jumped on for a few simple comments about this study. I think you and I would also probably agree that a study where you had a hundred people, some who were on the diet for a short as 16 months, and then all were off it anywhere from 8 months to 14 YEARS, doesn't prove much at all about long term safety of LC. You could have someone on it for one year and then off it for the next fourteen years. Did anyone really expect to find with some routine blood tests that there WAS long term damage 10 years later? Or that what persons ate for 14 years after going off the diet would not have an effect on cholesterol. Geez. Had they followed and reported on those on the diet for 6, 8, 10 years and still on it, then I'd say we would have had something far more meaningful. In fact, the more I think about it, the whole foundation of this study stinks. It's as if they had to have subjects that went OFF the diet for an extended period to test if they returned to normal. Which implies they think that while on the diet their test work would show abnormalities. Now, I'll probably get another helping of attitude from someone defending John Hopkins, the diet, other studies, etc. So, take note. I'm not saying the diet sucks, JH sucks, LC is unsafe long term, etc. Only that I have issues which I believe are valid with what we know about this specific study. > Controlling protein intake is well within the bounds of the common low > carb plans. Many low carbers never bother to try restricting protein > but some do and there's been plenty of discussion of the topic on ASDLC > over the years. It's not typical of any low carb diet or dieter. Maybe that's why the typical low carber doesn't have the elevated risk of kidney stones that kids on the epilepsy ketogenic diet do? Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's not typical of any low carb diet or dieter. Sure, I understand. That's why you immediately joined pamela in snide remarks directed at me, instead of simply telling her that the study she posted is useless as related to LC, right? Geez. And I agree with Doug that the ketogenic diet is within the definition and parameters of low carb. Like Doug, I've seen folks here over the years that have restricted their protein intake and increased their fat intake while on LC. Ever hear of an Atkins fat fast where the protein intake is close to zero? But you can't have it both ways. Like pamela, you need to make up your mind. Either the ketogenic diet study has applicability to LC or else far from being evidence that LC is safe long term, it simply has no relevance. >> Controlling protein intake is well within the bounds of the common low >> carb plans. Many low carbers never bother to try restricting protein >> but some do and there's been plenty of discussion of the topic on ASDLC >> over the years. > > It's not typical of any low carb diet or dieter. Sure. It seems more common for folks to increase protein and decrease fat. I used the word some because the majority don't spend much time trying restricted protein variations. I think the majority never even try it. It's a minority strategy. Nonetheless plenty of minority strategies are tried and do get plenty of discussion here on ASDLC. > Maybe that's why the typical low carber doesn't have the elevated risk > of kidney stones that kids on the epilepsy ketogenic diet do? It's a good question. It suggests that milder low carbing is better which is a point I've stressed since before I started posting on ASDLC. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > >> Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I believe you can get the whole study online. Then you can report back > later with your concerns below. Last time I checked there is no rule that people here aren't free to express opinions without reading the whole study. It's done all the time without people jumping on them. And if you're at all familiar with how these medical or scientific journals work, you'd know that in most cases you have to pay to get them. I just checked and that is exactly the case here. > The subjects had been > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > juvenile seizures via the specific ketogenic high fat diet developed for > that purpose. What does that have to do with anything? > You probably haven't read what that diet actually consists of. While I > think I know, I actually haven't read the details of that specific diet. > So, while I think I know, I don't actually know. Maybe you are in that > same group, but feel you have to talk anyway. What exactly is your problem? YOU are the one that started this thread saying this: "Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe" And a high fat, ketogenic diet by definition is LC, so why are you now getting nasty? All I did was point out that based on the summary data, it really doesn't say much about the long term safety, because it appears an unknown but probably significant number of the subjects had been on the diet for a time period as short as 16 months and then off it for periods as long as 14 years. If your point about cholesterol going up while on this diet was that it goes up because the diet is significantly higher in fat than the typical Atkins diet that has been shown to lower cholesterol, etc, you could just make that point without all the vitriol. As it is, I don't know what your point is. >> trad...@optonline.net wrote: >>>> Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > could just make that point without all the vitriol. As it is, I > don't know what your point is. You didn't know what my point was in presenting the study in the first place. That is what led to the present situation. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > >> trad...@optonline.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hmmm, let's see if we can figure it out. Are we supposed to be mindreaders? It's all of two sentences: "Some long term evidence of a low carb diet being safe. This one is medically used to treat juvenile epileptic seizures. " I guess your point was that you should be able to make posts about research reports, but no one should be able to then make any comments about those research reports without you getting your feathers all ruffled up? !! PLONK !! >> trad...@optonline.net wrote: >>>> trad...@optonline.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > about those research reports without you getting your feathers all > ruffled up? > !! PLONK !! What took you so long? ;-) Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Susan Old age and poor memory. I had forgotten just how big a waste it is to assume reason is possible, in this case. But I recognized the incessant unstoppable writing and said it was (again) time to call a halt to listening to any more of it. > > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unstoppable writing and said it was (again) time to call a halt to > listening to any more of it. Your old age and poor memory may explain why you don't know what the hell you're talking about and started attacking me for no reason. Go ahead and join your own little universe with Susan. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.