I, too, have recently been eating more protein with positive effects, and I believe as we age, it's a healthy thing to gradually consume more. I believe it was during the Low Carb Breckenridge presentations that a couple presenters argued the wisdom for increased protein consumption as we move into our 50s and beyond. It has been working for me without jeopardizing being in ketosis, which I have been maintaining most of the time over the past few years.

Edited to add: Dr. Ben Bikman's presentation at LC Breckenridge on Protein and Keto was stellar.

Anybody here doing the IDM membership? If so, insight would be appreciated, as it's so much more expensive than Diet Doctor.

I'm not a member of IDM, but I did dig into what it is up with it (just out of curiosity). What it looks like to me is that IDM offers live (one-on-one and group) support, much like Dr. Westman's Heal Clinics program (which is also on the pricey side). Dietdoctor.com is purely informational. Membership there pays for the limited resources needed to support the website. One-on-one/group coaching would be more labor intensive, thus justifying the extra cost. IMO - those of us here who have been doing this for some time would likely make better coaches than program participants of IDM or Heal Clinics. I suspect that the target audience of those more costly programs are people who need to be told that fruit juice, granola bars, and Special K cereal are not healthy and not permitted on a LCHF program.

You're probably right. I'm part of the FB Obesity Code group, and they seem to be having a contest every day as to who can NOT eat the longest. Not judging, but it's more a "how to" thing IMO. Whatever floats their boats.

In the near future there will be a need for Fung, Bredesen and the LCHF doctors to come together to address the variety of illnesses brought about by the diet people have been told to eat for the past 50 years. I only wish the perpetrators would have to PAY!

Evidence of dementia are already being discovered in deceased children's brains.

How much have you bumped up your protein intake and what positive effects have you seen?

deirdra - I had cut back to approximately 85-100 grams per day, as I was under the impression that it would enable me to maintain my weight better while staying in ketosis. After doing some research and watching Dr. Ben Bickman's excellent presentation about protein and keto at the Low Carb Breckenridge event, I increased protein consumption to a range of 125-140 grams per day by going back to the daily protein guideline of 1.5-2 grams protein per Kg of lean body weight. I'm 66, and the message from a few sources was that as we age, it's good to consume a healthy amount of protein. I probably cut back very slightly on fat; although, I still enjoy eating good healthy fat. With the increase in protein, I've lost weight, not rapidly, but easily have dropped a few pounds, and my pants are now looser around the waist. I used to grill a 1 pound NY Strip and eat it over successive evenings to get two dinners out of it. Now, if I'm hungy, I just eat the whole thing. Sometimes, my hunger just shuts off, so I have some leftovers, but I'm not purposely limiting protein any longer, and I seem to be responding positively by dropping some weight and having a good amount of energy. Getting in regular and consistent exercise is a complementary activity as well.

That is a stark fact about how far Western Civilization has gone towards killing us through a combination of greed, ignorance, and ego.

The part which baffles me most is that they are dying too. This is killing their grandparents, their kids, themselves. Are they truly so greedy they are not pursuing alternatives because it would make their stock price go down?

Just watched this. Very nearly restored my faith in humanity, somebody out there is actually going out of their way to make supportable statements.

His suggestion that if glucose is constantly elevated, lowering protein in favour of fat makes sense--insulin/glucagon response to protein being dependent on background glycemia--sounds good.

Also--the comment that red blood cells are the only cells that absolutely need glucose, there being no evidence that brain cells can't run on alternate fuels is interesting, I've wondered about that for a long time. The old fasting studies give 20-30 grams or so as the minimum glucose requirement for the brain--which just happens to be the amount of glucose people could be making from glycerol and the breakdown of protein at the rates that occur deep into a fast. I've wondered whether this is a matter of efficiency--some protein is going to be wasted on a daily basis, can you expect a perfectly efficient system? There just seems to be an assumption that whatever terminal oxidation of glucose, or at least of possible gluconeogenic substrate, that occurs on a daily basis at that point must be the minimum requirement, maybe minimum oxidation would be a better description.

Supportable statements? Who'd have thought . . .

I believe this is one of the key points in his message in that with elevated glucose, lowering protein reduces "background glycemia."

Yeah, RBCs have no mitochondria, so it goes to reason that there's a requirement for glucose.

Efficiency of protein utilization is a valid thought, as to your point, it's more likely we do not have a perfectly efficient system, and more likely that inefficiencies continue to occur as we age. Increasing protein consumption based on certain factors such as age as a compensatory mechanism makes sense in this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ03Oqw3nGQ

I found Richard Morris's talk on protein pretty reasonable as well. But one thing you get from it is how sparse the attempt to actually establish protein requirements really is--systematic data is old, and only attempted in men.

Even there, it's based on what amount of protein achieves nitrogen balance, with wide variance in just how much protein it takes. Lots of problems with this.

If you've been eating 100 grams of protein a day for a year, your protein requirement will probably be higher than if your habitual intake has been 50 grams of protein a day. If you're very lean, likely your protein intake for balance will be a bit higher vs. very fat. Do a nitrogen balance study on the average person today, and you'll get a much higher protein requirement than you'd have gotten in the 30s and 40s, guaranteed.

Exercise can drive the amount needed for balance up or down--it promotes anabolic processes in muscle, but excessive amounts, especially certain endurance type exercises, can be catabolic.

Even aside from this, assuming that nitrogen balance is optimal assumes that the body stores of protein going in were optimal. It's really no wonder there's so much contention, we don't have really solid answers, just best guesses.

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/...in-latest-book/

I thought this Jimmy Moore interview with Dr. Fung about his new book was pretty good. He mostly let Dr. Fung have free rein to deliver his message.

I suspect that if you routinely eat 100+g of protein/day your body may waste it, but if you only eat 50g/day, your body will conserve and recycle protein bits broken down during autophagy.

Dr Fung recorded an NBC Think video on Calories, included within this new post: The Failure of the Calorie Theory of Obesity.

https://idmprogram.com/the-failure-...ory-of-obesity/

I'll never forget the hour-plus argument on the phone with my brother---he was all about the calories, couldnt hear how well DANDR worked. He is older, so in his mind he is always right. hehe

And he had become a specialist to work with the morbidly obese.

THanks Janet for posting this information. For obvious reasons, I depend on the support of this forum.

IN a feeds and feeding class for livestock, especially cattle, the energy count of any food stuff is calculated at the net energy level. ANd every food stuff is evalutated and listed in the food stuff charts. The calories of any given foodstuff is not as important as the net energy, which is determined using a real live animal eating that food for real. Calories are calculated using a machine, and chemical tests in a laboratory. THe live animal models reveal different results.

My point is that somehow human food issues went off the rails, yet the science has always been there, in the ag industry.

Thanks for that info from the Ag perspective. Our move to NC twenty years ago was for DH to join an Ag Biotech, and the area is still surrounded by chicken and hog grow out operations. Love to see the local movement to more sustainable farming..they still grow big, just takes longer.

Back to the discussion on Protein, and since this forum is titled Dr Bernstein and Diabetes, RobbWolf did an excellent interview with RD Dikeman, including an update on his T1 son's growth at age 14.
https://robbwolf.com/2018/04/24/epi...tes-management/
But in it was a interesting discussion of Dr Bernstein's position that the Diet should be "protein centric", not to add fats. His views come from managing T1 Diabetes for 40 years with Low Carb (and Dr Westman follows almost the same for Obesity). Much is on T1 management but the podcast also includes two very smart dudes discussing the Ketogenic Diet and current misinformation. Recommended at the end is using the KetoGains macronutrient calculator for guidelines, there is a choice to lose fat or build muscle. (I mistakenly thought that site was just body builders). Anyway enough on protein in this podcast for both T1 and 2 and non-diabetics to listen.