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 > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jan-28-20, 08:21
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default Nonsense about keto in small doses

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...00127134741.htm
Quote:
Keto diet works best in small doses, mouse study finds

A ketogenic diet -- which provides 99% of calories from fat and only 1% from carbohydrates -- produces health benefits in the short term, but negative effects after about a week, Yale researchers found in a study of mice.

The results offer early indications that the keto diet could, over limited time periods, improve human health by lowering diabetes risk and inflammation. They also represent an important first step toward possible clinical trials in humans.

The keto diet has become increasingly popular as celebrities, including Gwyneth Paltrow, Lebron James, and Kim Kardashian, have touted it as a weight-loss regimen.

In the Yale study, published in the Jan. 20 issue of Nature Metabolism, researchers found that the positive and negative effects of the diet both relate to immune cells called gamma delta T-cells, tissue-protective cells that lower diabetes risk and inflammation.

A keto diet tricks the body into burning fat, said lead author Vishwa Deep Dixit of the Yale School of Medicine. When the body's glucose level is reduced due to the diet's low carbohydrate content, the body acts as if it is in a starvation state -- although it is not -- and begins burning fats instead of carbohydrates. This process in turn yields chemicals called ketone bodies as an alternative source of fuel. When the body burns ketone bodies, tissue-protective gamma delta T-cells expand throughout the body.

This reduces diabetes risk and inflammation, and improves the body's metabolism, said Dixit, the Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Comparative Medicine and of Immunobiology. After a week on the keto diet, he said, mice show a reduction in blood sugar levels and inflammation.

But when the body is in this "starving-not-starving" mode, fat storage is also happening simultaneously with fat breakdown, the researchers found. When mice continue to eat the high-fat, low-carb diet beyond one week, Dixit said, they consume more fat than they can burn, and develop diabetes and obesity.

"They lose the protective gamma delta T-cells in the fat," he said.

Long-term clinical studies in humans are still necessary to validate the anecdotal claims of keto's health benefits.

"Before such a diet can be prescribed, a large clinical trial in controlled conditions is necessary to understand the mechanism behind metabolic and immunological benefits or any potential harm to individuals who are overweight and pre-diabetic," Dixit said.

There are good reasons to pursue further study: According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 84 million American adults -- or more than one out of three -- have prediabetes (increased blood sugar levels), putting them at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. More than 90% of people with this condition don't know they have it.

"Obesity and type 2 diabetes are lifestyle diseases," Dixit said. "Diet allows people a way to be in control."

With the latest findings, researchers now better understand the mechanisms at work in bodies sustained on the keto diet, and why the diet may bring health benefits over limited time periods.

"Our findings highlight the interplay between metabolism and the immune system, and how it coordinates maintenance of healthy tissue function," said Emily Goldberg, the postdoctoral fellow in comparative medicine who discovered that the keto diet expands gamma-delta T cells in mice.

If the ideal length of the diet for health benefits in humans is a subject for later studies, Dixit said, discovering that keto is better in small doses is good news, he said: "Who wants to be on a diet forever?"

The research was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health.


First I have to assume that they mean 99 percent of non-protein calories come from fat here, or the stupid would just be too thick to cut through.

Assumptions made here. Mice acclimate to the keto diet used here and after a week, start overeating it, and get high blood glucose. Some factors here. Arctic animals can burn just 'fat'--fatty acids and glycerol no need for ketones to support brain function. They burn through large amounts of body fat, enough so that the glycerol from the triglycerides broken down is enough to supply their brain's energy needs. This is easier for non-human animals, generally their brain energy needs amounts to ten percent of their metabolism, where an adult humans runs at twenty percent. That includes mice, brain is a lot smaller fraction of their metabolic rate than in a human. So a diet that is barely ketogenic for a mouse is very ketogenic for a human, because of that energy/glucose sink (once you adjust for differences in metabolic rate).

Another thing--deprived of food, a mouse will starve in days, a human will generally starve in months.


Quote:
Long-term clinical studies in humans are still necessary to validate the anecdotal claims of keto's health benefits.

"Before such a diet can be prescribed, a large clinical trial in controlled conditions is necessary to understand the mechanism behind metabolic and immunological benefits or any potential harm to individuals who are overweight and pre-diabetic," Dixit said.


They're still necessary. That doesn't mean they're lacking, or shouldn't be prescribed yet. Keto diet-->hyperglycemia is a mouse phenomenon.

I see a sort of funding bias in this sort of thing. Researchers need to make their proposed studies seem crucial to get their funding, this includes unfortunately making a low carb/ketogenic diet look like there's less to support its use in humans than there actually is.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Jan-28-20, 11:11
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,177
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Hard to beleive in studyies. Each one must be carefully scritinized for accuracy.


Quote:
A keto diet tricks the body into burning fat, said lead author Vishwa Deep Dixit of the Yale School of Medicine.



"tricks" is used like a con job. Changing energy source from carbs to fats is a built in capability.


Quote:
When the body burns ketone bodies, tissue-protective gamma delta T-cells expand throughout the body.


That sounds like a good thing.

Quote:


But when the body is in this "starving-not-starving" mode, fat storage is also happening simultaneously with fat breakdown, the researchers found. When mice continue to eat the high-fat, low-carb diet beyond one week, Dixit said, they consume more fat than they can burn, and develop diabetes and obesity.

"They lose the protective gamma delta T-cells in the fat," he said.
.


Seems like weight loss is protective. So why is this presented in a twisted way...

hmmm....how does consuming fat fit with creating diabetes....
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Jan-28-20, 11:41
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Researchers must constantly secure funding to do what they do. Who has incentive to fund? Usually those who stand to benefit from findings, which is the first wave of bias. Sometimes, funded research just disappears when the findings don't support the funders' objectives. How do we ensure that the scientific method is actually followed and not just some pablum to make things appear to be definitive? We can't, we can only continue to be skeptical and look at the whole picture. Researchers need money to work and get paid, funders require beneficial results for their agendas, and cutting corners with biased results is a reality in this arranged relationship. Keto research provides no motivation for those with money to fund because keto is easy to manage without anything other than whole foods. Where's the potential market here? Those who have developed "food" for keto have a long road, as being one who is keto, I wouldn't pay for something I can do on my own.

I'm not limiting this comment to nutrition, I'm extending this comment to all "scientific" research. Think the government can come in and lend some credibility to all this? Think again, as the government is supported in different ways by these same funding sources as well.

I believe the mouse model related to research has large cracks because they are not human, but many would like to believe they are and respond the same.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Jan-28-20, 12:15
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,608
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

For. Mice. Who naturally eat grains. Unlike. Us.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Jan-31-20, 08:42
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,147
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/162/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

There go those mice again, messing with my metabolism. I was particularly struck by the point Teaser makes about mice having proportionately smaller brains. Smaller brain=less energy required. People are the biggest kahuna on the planet because we have...big brains. Not that you'd know it, judging by some of the "science" we read these days (I won't mention politics.) But certainly more of the energy we eat goes toward furnishing the brain cells.

If I remember some reading correctly, human brain cells positively thrive on ketones. Or maybe it was brain cells use up all the glucose, and the ketones get used for everything else. Either way, dietary and consumed fat gets used up.*

Unfortunately my current aversion to counting stuff (calories, carbs, macros, etc.) prevents me from documenting my keto success. Maybe I should try to figure out what percentage of my daily menu actually is fat. I don't believe that I eat a "high fat" diet to achieve a ketogenic ratio. Slashing the carbs to "nearly nothing" (again, not measured) seems to do that.

Maybe scientists ought to start using hibernating animals to test fat accumulation. Their bodies seem to regulate fat quite differently from human bodies, but never mind. They won't complain about the diet.

*I looked it up. See Taubes, Why We Get Fat pp. 177-178. Excerpt:
Quote:
With no carbohydrates in the diet, ketones will provide roughly three-quarters of the energy that our brains use....Researchers have reported that the brain and central nervous system actually run more efficiently on ketones than they do on glucose.

Last edited by bkloots : Fri, Jan-31-20 at 08:49.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Jan-31-20, 09:39
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,758
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Quote:
"Before such a diet can be prescribed, a large clinical trial in controlled conditions is necessary to understand the mechanism behind metabolic and immunological benefits or any potential harm to individuals who are overweight and pre-diabetic," Dixit said.
I must have missed those large clinical trials done on the low-fat, high-carb diet when it became the recommended eating method. And is the Mediterranean diet clinical trials still going on?
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Jan-31-20, 16:02
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,147
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/162/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
"Before such a diet can be prescribed, a large clinical trial in controlled conditions is necessary to understand the mechanism behind metabolic and immunological benefits or any potential harm to individuals who are overweight and pre-diabetic," Dixit said.


How about 99.99% of human evolution? That count?
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Jan-31-20, 19:11
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,758
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
How about 99.99% of human evolution? That count?
There was no control group, so the data is worthless!
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Jan-31-20, 19:55
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,953
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

The way I see it is this (warning: conspiracy theory ahead).

The factory farms would like to plow up all the pasture lands and turn it into corn and soy fields. Of course we know that means a lot of fertilizer, insecticide and herbicide will be used, so those companies also stand to gain billions.

They see people eating keto, which means lots of meat that feed on those pastureland with no fertilizer, insecticide or herbicide needed. The big Ag industries need to do something about that to protect and grow more profits.

So pay someone to do a biased from the start scientific study. If the study shows keto is better, throw it out and do one until it shows eating plants is better than eating meat, then assign a nice name to the company doing the study and blast the findings on the media.

Sure it's fraud news (I don't use fake because when the intent is to defraud, fake minimizes it) and as we know, people believe the media.

Fortunately we know better, but if big Ag wins this war, meat will become scarce and expensive.

Bob

P.S. It's a problem with corporate farming.

A small family farm only needs to make enough money to pay the farmer and his or her help. The farmer doesn't need to make more profit quarter after quarter, year after year - instead only keep up with inflation. Any more profit is welcome but not essential.

A corporation has stockholders, most of which do not work for the corporation (farm or otherwise). The non-participants want their money to grow, if it doesn't grow, but simply keeps up with inflation, the stockholders will sell their shares and put their money elsewhere. Therefore the corporation needs to keep making higher and higher and higher profits every quarter, every year. This is the perpetual growth model, and in a closed system, it's bound to crash some day.

So the corporations will do whatever they can to increase profits, with no regard to the health of their end customers or the cost to the environment.

This is the Achilles heel of capitalism.

I don't know how to fix that, only identify the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Jan-31-20, 20:05
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,177
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

When the owner of Polyface farm presents this argument to goverors and senators he knows its useless. The big ag has a bigger say. Doesnt stop him from sharing his methods.......
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sat, Feb-01-20, 08:19
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-a-rama
The way I see it is this (warning: conspiracy theory ahead).

The factory farms would like to plow up all the pasture lands and turn it into corn and soy fields. Of course we know that means a lot of fertilizer, insecticide and herbicide will be used, so those companies also stand to gain billions.

They see people eating keto, which means lots of meat that feed on those pastureland with no fertilizer, insecticide or herbicide needed. The big Ag industries need to do something about that to protect and grow more profits.

So pay someone to do a biased from the start scientific study. If the study shows keto is better, throw it out and do one until it shows eating plants is better than eating meat, then assign a nice name to the company doing the study and blast the findings on the media.

Sure it's fraud news (I don't use fake because when the intent is to defraud, fake minimizes it) and as we know, people believe the media.

Fortunately we know better, but if big Ag wins this war, meat will become scarce and expensive.

Bob

P.S. It's a problem with corporate farming.

A small family farm only needs to make enough money to pay the farmer and his or her help. The farmer doesn't need to make more profit quarter after quarter, year after year - instead only keep up with inflation. Any more profit is welcome but not essential.

A corporation has stockholders, most of which do not work for the corporation (farm or otherwise). The non-participants want their money to grow, if it doesn't grow, but simply keeps up with inflation, the stockholders will sell their shares and put their money elsewhere. Therefore the corporation needs to keep making higher and higher and higher profits every quarter, every year. This is the perpetual growth model, and in a closed system, it's bound to crash some day.

So the corporations will do whatever they can to increase profits, with no regard to the health of their end customers or the cost to the environment.

This is the Achilles heel of capitalism.

I don't know how to fix that, only identify the problem.


While as I said at the start I do think there is a bias going in that's distorting at least how the scientists and their University describes the evidence for keto to support their own study--I don't think you're being at all fair to them here. I think they want more study on keto, they'd be perfectly happy to be the ones that "finally" show keto to be safe in humans. But right now, they want to paint it as potentially risky enough to suggest that they should receive more funding.

Not that I don't think that Big Soy etc. are willing to play dirty--I just don't see how you jump to that conclusion for these particular researchers. Where is the connection?
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, Feb-01-20, 10:33
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,177
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

It comes from looking at the bigger picture.....and a background in Ag.......
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Feb-01-20, 13:20
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

It ought to come from evidence. It's not fair to just accuse willy-nilly.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Feb-01-20, 16:44
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,953
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
<...snip...>
Not that I don't think that Big Soy etc. are willing to play dirty--I just don't see how you jump to that conclusion for these particular researchers. Where is the connection?

First of all I stated right from the start it's a conspiracy theory. I know of no evidence, that's why it's only a theory.

I did read that Big Ag furnished the "fat is bad" test to the American Heart Association and donates millions of dollars per year to them. (I forget exactly which companies, sorry).

I remember the companies hired to play scientist and tell us smoking was good for us.

I read that Big Sugar ran a smear campaign using various scientific sounding named entities against all alternative sweeteners, even calling stevia artificial and possible cancerous, yet nothing in peer-reviewed, respected, scientific journals have ever came to that conclusion. At least in the ones I read, and I read quite a few.

I've read faux-scientific reports that meat will rot your insides out and is almost impossible to digest, pointing to the conclusion that we should all be vegans.

These companies are called "Merchants of Doubt" and there is a good book and documentary about them. https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

So by looking at the profit goals I can imagine a conspiracy theory, and like all conspiracy theories it's untested but thought provoking. Nobody is accused, just suspected.

If it's not published in a peer-reviewed, respected, scientific journal, it's possible to be someone with an agenda. It's something to always keep in mind.

When published in a peer-review journal, the scientist is asking other scientists to review it, test it for themselves, and see if it holds up to other similar tests.

So I am putting up the possibility that what you read, if it isn't set out for peer review, might just be propaganda with a profit motive. I'm not saying all science that isn't peer reviewed is either good or bad, but like an unknown e-mail attachment, it pays to be a little skeptical.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sat, Feb-01-20, 19:44
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,312
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

Quote:
When published in a peer-review journal, the scientist is asking other scientists to review it, test it for themselves, and see if it holds up to other similar tests.
well, maybe....

As the spouse of a now-retired research scientist (cancer genetics) I've had a ring-side seat to the whole "peer-review" process for the past 45 years. It's definitely not as "scientific" as one would hope.

You might find this article interesting: Peer Review is Not Scientific. Although written by someone in the social sciences, I can tell you that much of what he says about the peer-review process in his field holds equally true in the so-called hard-sciences.

Although he doesn't come right out and say it, I think the article's author thinks that paying scientists to do peer review would solve the problems and I don't think that is necessarily the best approach. A better one, IMHO, would be to reveal the names of the scientists who reviewed papers that get accepted for publication... and then make their "reviews" available to anyone interested in seeing them. And, also allow/encourage those who do such reviews to add the work to their CVs so it counts as professional work. And, if a paper is rejected for publication, let the scientists who wrote the paper know who the scientists are who reviewed it.

In addition to the issues raised in the article linked above, papers authored (or co-authored) by someone with name-recognition in the field are MUCH more likely to be accepted for publication that papers submitted by an unknown. Young scientists are so aware of this so well that they fall all over themselves to invite "name" scientists to "collaborate" with them on a projects just so they can add that person as a co-author. The name scientist may do little more than offer a single suggestion and (possibly) read over the finished paper before it is published!

And, well known well-respected researchers who are asked by journals to perform peer-review will often accept the assignments and then pass them along to the underlings in their laboratory to do the actual reviews. The top dog may or may not even look over the review his/her underling has prepared before it gets sent back to the journal. The journal editors may THINK the well-known researcher did the review...which, of course, means that the next time the researcher submits a paper to that journal for consideration, he'll be given a certain amount of "priority" because they have an established relationship with him.



And of course there is always the problem that yet another paper that reinforces accepted dogma and (maybe) just barely pushes the envelope a tiny bit is much more likely to be understood by even the best-intentioned reviewer than an equally well-researched and well-written article that comes to a conclusion that flies in the face of dogma.


Also, people peer-reviewing a submitted paper DO NOT attempt to replicate the bench-work described in the papers they're reviewing and nobody expects them to. So when you write that "when published in a peer-reviewed journal, the scientist is asking other scientists to review it, test it for themselves..." I hope you're not under the impression that experiments and results described in a peer-reviewed journal have somehow been "replicated" by other scientists in other labs before the work is published. It doesn't happen that way! At most, all that peer-review means is that some other scientists have read the work and it passed their personal "smell tests"... which of course also means that it is UNLIKELY to have taken a stance too far removed from what those other scientists already believed to be true.



And, in this day and age of scrambling for research dollars, NOBODY has the time or money to merely duplicate someone else's published work to figure out if they get the same results. Everybody is trying to push the envelope and do something new because that's the only way to get research grants. So, at best, they'll take published results and try to replicate them only to the extent necessary to then add on some other step that goes just a little bit further. And, when a second scientist cannot replicate something that has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, he is usually told "you must be doing something wrong." Nobody ever wants to believe that maybe the published work was wrong in the first place!


Just my 2cents.... well, maybe $2
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 04:37.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.