Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Jan-14-17, 09:30
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,018
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default Urine test shows if you followed "the guidelines" - creepy

News today. A trial shows that a urine test can show if you follow "the guidelines" in food. Looks like the intent was to get around the inaccuracy of food questionnaires. A controlled randomized crossover trial too.

What's concerning is they are not measuring health, but adherence to guidelines! Can you imagine pee tests as a condition of treatment or insurance? (I can)

Urine test could reveal if your diet is a threat to your health
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Jan-14-17, 10:01
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,522
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/153/135 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Yikes! So...who gets to define "healthy" diet?

Biochemists on board here: What's a "metabolite" and what does it have to do with good health?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Jan-14-17, 10:22
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,270
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
a substance formed in or necessary for metabolism.


I saw this story on Science Daily, this popped out for me there;

Quote:
Dr Isabel Garcia-Perez, co-author from the Faculty of Medicine at Imperial explained: "We need to develop the test further so we can monitor the diet based on a single urine sample, as well as increase the sensitivity. This will eventually provide a tool for personalised dietary monitoring to help maintain a healthy lifestyle. We're not at the stage yet where the test can tell us a person ate 15 chips yesterday and two sausages, but it's on the way."


I really doubt that this statement about sooner or later knowing how many sausages a person ate the day before is true. Diet recall has high resolution with adherence, but poor adherence. This will have lower resolution, but adherence to peeing in a cup is a little easier to judge. I guess it might increase adherence to a diet if subjects believe the urinalysis gives more information than it does. And taken together, researchers could see whether the reported foods eaten are plausible.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Jan-14-17, 11:57
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,564
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

One problem with what ends up in pee is that it is part food intake and part how your body uses the food. I didn't see ketones on their list of things measured (though perhaps acetate or something measures it), but sugar-eaters put on a ketogenic diet shed them in urine and the fat-adapted use them for energy and brain activity etc.. We'd have great glucose levels.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jan-15-17, 07:39
Atrsy's Avatar
Atrsy Atrsy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,044
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 050/029/000 Female 5ft, 8 1/2 inches
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Actually, there are urine tests that will help with determining diet. Keto Stix will tell you if there are ketones in your urine and determine if you are on a low carb diet. Ketones are the preferred fuel for your brain. And the Keto Diastix will help to determine sugars for diabetics. These tests do show a range, but not a specific number. Anyone on a low carb diet can show ketones in their urine--not just diabetics.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jan-15-17, 11:04
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,142
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

I just skimmed the article, too much statistical jargon for me. They used compliance with the DASH diet as the measuring stick for the 4 diets. The metabolites they measured were mostly amino acids but also a pre vitamin B3, glucose, acetate, carnitine (red meat), hippurate from fruit and vegetables, some markers for fish intake, short chain fatty acids and urea.

If big brother or the insurance company ever forces you to give a sample I'm sure you'll be able to buy a "pill" form someone that will fix your urine...
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Jan-16-17, 05:22
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,531
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/169/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: USA
Default

This can also be a case of only measuring what they think they know.

When I found out lab tests use a criteria that is based on a dozen male, white, young med students, decades ago... I got a whole new perspective on how I could be so sick and yet test so "normal."
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jan-17-17, 13:35
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,143
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

In standard urine tests, ketones show as abnormal result. In fact, that's the best way to test whether we follow the guidelines, cuz of all the carbs we have to eat.

To answer bkloots, a metabolite is a by-product of metabolism of any particular molecule. For example, if we take drugs, these drugs break down into other things, we call those metabolites and can test for these in official competitions or something like that. However, the tests' method of action could be through chemistry rather than through direct measurement so that a different metabolite could show positive, i.e. ketones vs alcohol is the most famous for that.

This might blow up in their face. Here's how it could go. They figure out if we follow guidelines accurately. Then, some genuise decides to look for the association between this test and actual health, and finds out that the more accurately we follow the guidelines, the worse our health gets. Brilliant.

Think about it. We use all kinds of tests ourselves to see that low-carb works as intended. We know what to expect, and when we get the results we want, we're happy. On the other hand, we also know what to expect with the way we feel, such as mind fog, energy level, strength, etc. So, we don't really need tests but they're useful anyway.

At the end of that article, there's this paragraph:
Quote:
If you are trying to improve your diet, and possibly lose weight, then following the NHS Choices Weight Loss Plan may help. This provides downloadable "diet diary" sheets as well as suggestions for healthy meal choices.

With a link to this page: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-l...ng-started.aspx
With the most pertinent detail:
Quote:
For most men, this means sticking to a calorie limit of no more than 1,900kcal a day, and 1,400kcal for most women.

Which sounds almost exactly like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minne...tion_Experiment
Which is certain to produce these results (from the wiki page above):
Quote:
Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally). Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation. The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. This ought not, however, to be taken as an indication that capacity to work, study and learn will not be affected by starvation or intensive dieting. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources.


I was about to post the NHS' mission statement, but the paragraph from that wiki page will do just fine. I'm cynical, does it show?
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Jan-17-17, 13:52
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,270
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

It's not quite the same, though. I'm currently eating around 1800 calories, and I have probably 25 pounds of fat or more on my body. Suppose I cut it to 1600, and keep it at that, and go on a forced march every day, like they did in the Minnesota Study. At some point, I'm sure I'd get crazier than usual. But when? At 160 pounds? 150? 140 or 130? Semi-starvation in this study didn't mean partial starvation--it was real starvation, these men ended up looking frankly anorexic, because they were. I'm not defending simply insisting that people eat less to lose weight--and certainly one person's metabolism might start defending against starvation much sooner than another's--but what these men were subject to was unquestionably more severe than the mainstream advice. I think we should go up against what's actually there, not our worst nightmare version of it.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Jan-17-17, 13:53
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,143
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

For comparison, some of my results from going low-carb (more specifically all-meat in my case):

Improvements

- Strength, endurance, stamina, agility
- Eyesight, better than 20/20
- Mental abilities
- Aches and pains reduced or eliminated
- Breathing, lungs and nose
- Taste, smell
- Hearing
- Skin
- Sexual pleasure, ability
- Digestion, bowel function
- Sleep quality
- Mood
- Social behavior
- Blood pressure 90/60
- Heart rate 50
- Blood glucose 67 mg/dl
- Weight loss 190lbs => 165lbs

Or maybe I lied and totally followed the official guidelines to the letter. Ya.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Jan-17-17, 14:25
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,143
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
It's not quite the same, though. I'm currently eating around 1800 calories, and I have probably 25 pounds of fat or more on my body. Suppose I cut it to 1600, and keep it at that, and go on a forced march every day, like they did in the Minnesota Study. At some point, I'm sure I'd get crazier than usual. But when? At 160 pounds? 150? 140 or 130? Semi-starvation in this study didn't mean partial starvation--it was real starvation, these men ended up looking frankly anorexic, because they were. I'm not defending simply insisting that people eat less to lose weight--and certainly one person's metabolism might start defending against starvation much sooner than another's--but what these men were subject to was unquestionably more severe than the mainstream advice. I think we should go up against what's actually there, not our worst nightmare version of it.

I think it's not a function of body weight, but a function of food intake. I know a guy who's totally crazy, and totally 450lbs of crazy. Let's not get confused between the cause and the effect, i.e. food intake vs body weight. How could the effect - body weight - somehow become the cause of crazy? All these symptoms of semi-starvation are rampant disorders today, independently of body weight.

There is no longer a standard of health. It's now a standard of disease. If we don't suffer from something, we're abnormal. I'm not kidding. Socially, perfect health is alien, the weird guy in the corner. The point is that the NHS' guidelines' effect and the Minnesota experiment are much more similar to each other than perfect health and the NHS' guidelines' effect, so the analogy is valid in my mind, and my cynicism is totally justified.

Also, it's not just about total calories. In fact it's not about total calories at all. The Minnesota diet can be described as "mostly plants, not too much", which is exactly what all official guidelines call for. Remind you of anything? Not saying Pollan is the source of the official guidelines, just saying the description is accurate enough for both the NHS' guidelines and the Minnesota diet.

The problem with that is the actual amount of food. I did a quick calculation a while ago, for a man, it comes out to about 5 lbs of food per day, with huge bulk because we're talking about 2500 kcals of veggies. There's a lot, but we don't get fed. Then, because we eat so many carbs, we're constantly hungry even though we eat an apparent adequate amount of food in terms of total calories. It's not the calories, ever. It's the nutrition. It's also the satiety. Indeed, we often remark that genuine starvation - i.e. fasting - will eventually lead to absence of hunger in only a couple days, and that this makes sense from an evolution point of view, we can't do anything with constant hunger, we can't think straight. When we eat a low-carb meal, we are sated, we're no longer hungry, the food did what it was supposed to do, because it was actual genuine food. Ergo, low-carb has the same effect as fasting - satiety. Second ergo, the Minnesota diet has the opposite effect - hunger. Third ergo, that diet is not food, regardless of the calories contained therein.

Look, I realize I'm totally contentious and wallotexty and stuff, but I'm just trying to get a point across about genuine food vs anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Jan-17-17, 15:02
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,270
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
I think it's not a function of body weight, but a function of food intake. I know a guy who's totally crazy, and totally 450lbs of crazy.


Well, that may be. But a study that starves young men to the point where not that many days of fasting would probably kill them really can't be used to make the point. I really don't disagree with your general point--but it's doubtful that if you took as many men as there were in the Minnesota Study, but all of them with a bmi of 30 instead of at "normal" weight where they started--some of the before pictures look fairly skinny, by today's standard--and fed them that amount of food and gave them that amount of exercise, it's sort of doubtful that anybody would end up eating their hand.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, Jan-17-17, 22:45
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,163
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Problem I see with that Minnesota study is since they gave the guys high carb foods that kept their insulin levels up so they could never fat/keto-adapt, they were hormonally forced to burn glucose for fuel. Not getting enough of that due to calorie-restricted diet, they turned to using up their own muscles and organs to convert to glucose to stay alive. A person well adapted hormonally to burning fat for fuel and eating a high fat, moderate protein low carb diet probably could do alright on a lower-ish absolute number of calories compared to someone burning glucose on the same restricted number of calories as mostly carbs. Years ago before discovering low carb I successfully lost a bunch of weight (all gained back plus interest) doing a semi-starvation low fat diet. Constant hunger, pretty unpleasant. Fast forward, lost a similar amount of weight with low carb and intermittent fasting. Hunger during fasting unpleasant, but overall not as unpleasant as previous experience with high carb/low fat, and I have plenty of energy whether I've recently eaten or not, no metabolic slow-down.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Jan-18-17, 06:05
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,270
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

I don't disagree with any of that--I certainly do find it easier to fast if I first eat at a very ketogenic level for at least a day or two, and calorie restriction with a high carb diet led to relapses with higher highs year after year. I might have eaten less calories on low carb, I don't really know because I didn't keep track, but one way or the other it didn't seem like less. But whether these young guys would have done okay on low carb--I don't know, it's likely they might have felt better early on, once they got past the carb flu but before they had lost much of their fat stores. It's hard to say that they exactly spared their fat tissue, so really you'd have to assume that they'd have burned less calories over the course of the experiment, otherwise you'd just be looking at the order in which fat and lean were used up--maybe they'd have started panicking a little later then, I don't know. Cahill did a study extended fasting lean young male students, they were burning about 1100 calories a day, so maybe with 1600 calories a day of a low carb diet, they could have gone on indefinitely, even with the exercise.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.