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
  #16   ^
Old Thu, Jun-01-17, 16:40
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,190
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

(oops, sorry, was replying to Teaser)

For the Bellevue trial, it was a big deal because it was believed that it would cause disease (scurvy specifically) in all humans. It didn't. The point is it's one extreme end of protein intake to show excess is not a valid concern a priori. But as you pointed out for your personal experience, it's not static, it can be adjusted to fit specific situations.

In my case, I didn't see a problem for ketones, they always tested +++ in spite of eating only meat during that period. But now, it's a different story. I don't know what ketones look like now for me, but I'm sure they're barely detectable because of the other parameters - insulin, BG, BP, HR, etc - when I apply my paradigm.

On a different tangent, the article is about protein RDA too low for the elderly. I'll argue that protein isn't the problem here. It's fat and carbs. When we're talking about the elderly, we're talking cheapest yet conforming to official guidelines because of tendency to put old people in group homes. So basically, it's all wheat and sugar, the cheapest possible forms of "food" these institutions can buy.

The above relates to protein through ketones and chaperone-mediated autophagy. It's not that they don't eat enough protein, it's that they waste too much through lack of proper recycling. It doesn't stop there, it's also through lack of proper regeneration (done through growth and protein synthesis) from hyperglycemia inhibiting growth hormone.

In line with the above, a solution to the protein problem is to go low-carb, even if protein intake stays the same. For the rest of us, this means it gives us a wider margin for protein intake to manage things like insulin and ketones for example. So I guess I agree with your disagreement, but I contend my point still stands as a solid baseline.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Thu, Jun-01-17, 17:03
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,190
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
mTOR. Higher protein intake upregulates our nutrient-sensing system mTOR, signalling there must be plenty of nutrients around so grow rapidly, reproduce and (as I understand it) sort of burn out quickly and drop dead? Not sure that's exactly the best way to describe it, but something like that. So then low protein downregulates mTOR. Hey, maybe there's a famine or something, thinks our body, so better hunker down and go into repair mode and preserve one's self to survive long-term in case things get better so we can then eat plenty and reproduce (and then drop dead?). So some low-protein advocates think we're better off not to be upregulating mTOR with lots of protein because not only we but things like cancer cells and stuff like to grow, so that we should keep it tamped down with low protein so we'll keep repairing ourselves, stay healthy and live a long time. Except then isn't there the potential problem of sarcopenia, muscle wasting, getting weaker and more frail as we age if we don't upregulate mTOR to do some muscle growth to prevent all that? On the one hand people like Dr. Rosedale and Dr. Gundry suggest fairly low protein targets to downregulate mTOR and stay healthy; on the other I heard a talk by another doctor say women of a certain age should be eating lots of protein several times each day to upregulate mTOR or the muscle wasting will occur. So kind of seem like opposites--do we want mTOR upregulated, downregulated or what as we age? Anyone who knows more about this have any thoughts? It seems to me like more than a trivial matter because who wants to be maybe really long-lived but weak and frail? There's got to be more to this.

Wow, ya, lots of stuff in there. I'm not familiar with mTOR, I just did a quick search to get an idea.

OK, so first, longevity. We got Cynthia Kenyon who worked with worms and showed that insulin was the driving agent. Less insulin, longer life. Don't know if it applies to humans, but there's a very high likelihood that it does.

So now, overall health. We got a bunch of stuff showing insulin is the primary agent here. More insulin, worse health. Basically, whatever makes us fat, also makes us sick. Not necessarily through the same mechanisms, but the association is too strong to ignore.

So now for protein. It stimulates insulin, so we're dealing with both longevity and health. But there's a trick - fat. Eat more fat, mitigates insulin. It's as simple as that.

On Wiki, there's mention of oxidative damage. In my opinion, the entire idea of oxydative damage (and that anti-oxydants are beneficial) is absolute BS. We have lungs. Our cells have tons of mitochondria for aerobic respiration. Everything our cells do requires oxygen. Oxydation is the de facto life-giving mechanism for us. How could it somehow flip 180 and begin to kill us as we grow older? Well, mTOR is blamed for oxydative damage, so it's about as much BS there too, in my opinion.

On the other hand, mTOR gets me thinking about a genetic kill-switch (like in the Blade Runner movie for the replicants) but that's way outside the scope of this forum and discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 06:13
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,673
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Currently reading Fat for Fuel by Dr. Joseph Mercola, and his MMT (Metabolic Mitochondrial Therapy) approach recommends moderating protein in the same way Dr. Rosedale suggests by eating 1 gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass for maximum protein consumption per day. He doesn't adjust for age or activity levels.

For my numbers, that's 65 grams of max protein per day. His argument is that managing protein and keeping carbs low encourages fat burning and mitochondrial health and slows aging. He also recommends following a regular routine of IF for periods of time without eating to maintain this approach. Interesting read, and his position is not unfamiliar to many on this forum. MMT, however, requires food weighing, BG and ketone testing, and precision, not something I'm willing to do long term. However, his observations on mitochondria being the energy epicenter and, therefore, key in overall health when mitochondria are healthy is something I've been hearing more of from several others. He also instructs how to suppress activation of the mTOR pathway, which he claims is also key in slowing the aging process and improving health.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 06:27
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,772
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

That's pretty much where my protein intake is, with weekly/biweekly days where it's a bit higher for social reasons. If it's very much higher sometimes I'll lower protein a bit lower, maybe 40 grams, the day after, depending how I feel.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 07:31
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 2,833
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/122/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Vermont
Default

If I follow the Rosedale/Mercola recommendation I end up eating somewhere between 40-50 gms of protein a day and that is just not sustainable for me. Currently I average about 80 gms of protein a day. I think I will just stay there.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 08:03
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,772
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Individual results trump scientific guesses. Eric Westman did a recent video for Adapt answering the protein question. His protein recommendation was "I don't know how much protein you need." He gives that sort of answer a lot. A lot of low carb leaders will give a best guess, I think we should pay more attention when Westman says he doesn't know than when a lot of other people say that they do. Well-conducted, high-powered double blind studies are called the gold standard for a reason. But they're only good for finding what's generally effective. individual metabolism is too varied for this to be ideal. Optimal protein intake? How do we approach it? Suppose you have 100 people, one is an otherwise healthy 80 year old, but sarcopenic if protein is less than 100 grams per day, one has a form of epilepsy, with an upper threshold of 60 grams of protein, otherwise the diet isn't ketogenic enough to prevent seizures. Do you suggest that the whole population eat at least enough protein to keep that one 80 year old from losing lean mass--that's how it's been done in the past--or do you suggest that the whole population keep protein low enough to keep the most vulnerable individual from getting in trouble? Group studies are good for getting a ballpark. But well-conducted n=1 are the gold standard for the individual. Except for things like cyanide.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 08:13
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,746
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/149.7/135 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
I think we should pay more attention when Westman says he doesn't know than when a lot of other people say that they do.
Excellent tribute to an excellent advisor.
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 09:18
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,673
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
I think we should pay more attention when Westman says he doesn't know than when a lot of other people say that they do. Well-conducted, high-powered double blind studies are called the gold standard for a reason. But they're only good for finding what's generally effective. individual metabolism is too varied for this to be ideal. Optimal protein intake? How do we approach it? Suppose you have 100 people, one is an otherwise healthy 80 year old, but sarcopenic if protein is less than 100 grams per day, one has a form of epilepsy, with an upper threshold of 60 grams of protein, otherwise the diet isn't ketogenic enough to prevent seizures. Do you suggest that the whole population eat at least enough protein to keep that one 80 year old from losing lean mass--that's how it's been done in the past--or do you suggest that the whole population keep protein low enough to keep the most vulnerable individual from getting in trouble? Group studies are good for getting a ballpark. But well-conducted n=1 are the gold standard for the individual. Except for things like cyanide.

Well stated. N=1 is the gold standard for the individual, and those, experts or not, who recommend an optimal amount are making a general statement that is not tuned per individual and might be completely wrong for individuals due to not taking into account all the variables that would determine protein optimization. The naive idea that we're all the same, so eating the same things and the same quantities help to achieve the same level of health is a pipe dream. Some are similar, and we should start from there.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 09:45
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,190
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Individual results trump scientific guesses. Eric Westman did a recent video for Adapt answering the protein question. His protein recommendation was "I don't know how much protein you need." He gives that sort of answer a lot. A lot of low carb leaders will give a best guess, I think we should pay more attention when Westman says he doesn't know than when a lot of other people say that they do. Well-conducted, high-powered double blind studies are called the gold standard for a reason. But they're only good for finding what's generally effective. individual metabolism is too varied for this to be ideal. Optimal protein intake? How do we approach it? Suppose you have 100 people, one is an otherwise healthy 80 year old, but sarcopenic if protein is less than 100 grams per day, one has a form of epilepsy, with an upper threshold of 60 grams of protein, otherwise the diet isn't ketogenic enough to prevent seizures. Do you suggest that the whole population eat at least enough protein to keep that one 80 year old from losing lean mass--that's how it's been done in the past--or do you suggest that the whole population keep protein low enough to keep the most vulnerable individual from getting in trouble? Group studies are good for getting a ballpark. But well-conducted n=1 are the gold standard for the individual. Except for things like cyanide.

I agree, individual results trump anything else. If it works, it works, endof.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 16:03
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,673
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Here's a link to an interview of Dr. Joseph Mercola by Dr. David Perlmutter. In it, they discuss Mercola's new book, Fat for Fuel. Protein quantity is discussed along with the strategy of suppressing the activation of the mTOR pathway.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...troduction.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Fri, Jun-02-17, 16:48
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,190
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

This mTOR thing doesn't make sense to me, can't make it fit everything else I know about health and disease. So I found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28505179
Quote:
Interestingly, an increase in mRNA levels of anabolic genes (PI3K and mTORC1 complex: mTOR, mLST8 and RAPTOR) was also observed during food restriction.

Conclusion: Fasting causes growth. Not the first time I drew this conclusion, but this is the first time I find it in an experiment. Absurd that absence of materials would cause growth which would require those missing materials, right?

No, makes perfect sense. Biology is regulated by pro- and anti- systems, where the balance between the two produces what we call homeostasis. Take muscle growth for example. It is regulated by hormones, and these hormones then activate certain enzymes. With muscles, they grow continuously through myogenesis. Myostatin inhibits this growth. Follistatin inhibits myostatin, thus allowing this continuous growth to resume. The balance between continuous growth, follistatin and myostatin produces muscle mass homeostasis.

The point is that fasting is the absence of materials for this growth, and myostatin would then act in full force due to lack of materials for myogenesis to occur, resulting in muscle loss. To prevent muscle loss at a time when muscle mass is absolutely required for survival, myostatin must be inhibited, or mitigated by some other agent. Well, fasting stimulates GH, and GH is the most potent growth agent. GH also acts on enzymes, probably a ton of them too.

So now we got mTOR and GH who wake up when we fast, but then some guys with degrees say both of these things are bad cuz of something about cancer and oxydation and such. OK, let's get one thing clear. The benefits of fasting are unquestionable. Therefore, whoever says whatever bad stuff about mTOR and GH are likely to be complete idjits, let's not just regurgitate their BS, mkay?

Back to you, Dave.
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Fri, Jun-16-17, 08:23
4rules's Avatar
4rules 4rules is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 91
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 184.4/184.4/145 Female 5 4 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ontario, Canada
Default

what i notice when I LC binged on excess meats my urine stream is not as strong I am guessing that too much protein acts as a carb and this occurs. Limiting my protein to 1 egg, 3oz meat, lunch and supper everything works great
Just my thoughts. Does this occur with anyone else.
Loretta/4 rules
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Fri, Jun-16-17, 08:37
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,772
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

That's interesting. I notice a stronger urine stream when I cut down on protein to get things more ketogenic, too. Makes sense, ketogenic is more diuretic than low carb is more diuretic than carby madness.
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Fri, Jun-16-17, 09:04
4rules's Avatar
4rules 4rules is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 91
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 184.4/184.4/145 Female 5 4 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ontario, Canada
Default

I also noticed when I just started LCing again and I went crazy with binging on protein not carbs or sugar I felt heavy in my legs. I did put on 3 lbs...I am assuming my body was holding water because stream was not strong...I was glad to hear you noticed a stronger stream when you cut back on the protein...I have been eating my normal LC diet for 1 day that allows the scale to go down daily...today I am down 2 lbs down of the 3lbs gained...my legs feel better... I will drop steadily if I behave...my legs feel better... We are like a cup of water and fill up from the bottom up...
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Fri, Jun-16-17, 09:10
4rules's Avatar
4rules 4rules is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 91
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 184.4/184.4/145 Female 5 4 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ontario, Canada
Default

I was told by a doctor Specialist he told me that the number of fats cells we have when we are born are the same amount that we have when we are older...we dont get more fat cells because we get heavy...he said these cells fill up with a fluid that is like egg whites and it takes time to drain... carb do not let the fluid drain from the fluid cells...When you are on diet the cells Initially start draining l and then the fluid sits outside the cell before it is removed. I think that is the bloating you feel...Thought I would share...Loretta
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 22:44.


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