Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ketosis = oxidized lipoproteins?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
    You're saying you aren't interested in reading the book, then you're complaining that the references are in the book.
    I'm not complaining and Drumroll provided some references for me. Unfortunately these references do not support his claim.

    A look at Nora Gedgaudas' website made me very very suspicious of whatever she claims. To put it briefly, she doesn't look credible. Because of that I see no reason to read her book.

    In general, I'm wearing my sceptical face here because the claim that "those who run off of ketones at least occasionally tend to be at lower risk for developing Alzheimer's and dementia" is pure handwaving. Even to make it a question that can be answered requires defining what's "at least occasionally" and "tend to be at lower risk". After that you need a prospective study that would take about 20-40 years to complete -- and I'm pretty sure no one did such a study.

    To give a specific example, one paper in Drumroll's links (Neuroprotective and disease-modifying effects of the ketogenic diet) explicitly talks about neuroprotective effects of ketones. And sure, ketones help with epilepsy, that's been known for quite a while. But Alzheimer's? The paper quotes another paper (Reger et al. (2004)) which has indicated (I haven't read the paper, just the abstract) that feeding people suffering from AD some fat maybe makes them perform better on cognitive tests in the immediate aftermath of that feeding. It's a VERY long jump from there to saying that going in ketosis will lower your risk of Alzheimer's...

    Comment


    • #17
      Even if ketosis MAY improve your chances of avoiding alzheimers, so what? Constant ketosis will probably end up killing you dead years before alzheimers and dementia set in.

      Yes that MAY have been an exaggeration, but still...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Zach View Post
        Even if ketosis MAY improve your chances of avoiding alzheimers, so what? Constant ketosis will probably end up killing you dead years before alzheimers and dementia set in.

        Yes that MAY have been an exaggeration, but still...
        More precisely, it is without foundation
        Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

        Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

        Comment


        • #19
          It is very interesting how often the assertion that ketosis is somehow bad for you keeps cropping up. Eskimos were as primal and ketotic as it gets for their entire lifespans and had low incidence of cancer. Ketosis is only bad for cereal and sugar manufacturers. I'm a doc and have been on a ketogenic diet for 9 months now. It's no miracle but it's also no problem to stick to it. It does require you to think positively, about what you CAN have rather than obsessing on what you CAN't.

          My LDL has not changed much, slightly up, but triglycerides are way down (in the 30's) and HDL has gone from 50 to 77. My cardiologist could not believe it.

          Of course by more recent data, the LDL-C is not very predictive anyway; Apo-B or LDL-particle count are much better. (The "large fluffy" is also less predictive than particle counts. It's just that on average if you have large fluffy's, you TEND to have lower particle counts.) Non-HDL cholesterol (total minus HDL) is better than LDL as well.

          The only disadvantage I know of for ketosis is that it MIGHT lower your ability to do high intensity, anaerobic exercise because some have a bit less glycogen. What is the evidence for ketosis "killing you dead?"
          10/2/12: 169 lbs, 37"waist
          Now: low 150's, 33" waist
          Blog: http://paleopathologist.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jmsmall View Post
            It is very interesting how often the assertion that ketosis is somehow bad for you keeps cropping up. Eskimos were as primal and ketotic as it gets for their entire lifespans and had low incidence of cancer. Ketosis is only bad for cereal and sugar manufacturers. I'm a doc and have been on a ketogenic diet for 9 months now. It's no miracle but it's also no problem to stick to it. It does require you to think positively, about what you CAN have rather than obsessing on what you CAN't.

            My LDL has not changed much, slightly up, but triglycerides are way down (in the 30's) and HDL has gone from 50 to 77. My cardiologist could not believe it.

            Of course by more recent data, the LDL-C is not very predictive anyway; Apo-B or LDL-particle count are much better. (The "large fluffy" is also less predictive than particle counts. It's just that on average if you have large fluffy's, you TEND to have lower particle counts.) Non-HDL cholesterol (total minus HDL) is better than LDL as well.

            The only disadvantage I know of for ketosis is that it MIGHT lower your ability to do high intensity, anaerobic exercise because some have a bit less glycogen. What is the evidence for ketosis "killing you dead?"
            A whole 9 months? Well it must be awesome for us then...

            By the way, the Inuit ate things that would make Hannibal Lector squeamish. They may have been in a ketogenic state most of the time but they also ate tons of stuff you dont and got nutrition that was right for them (extremely cold weather with little sunlight).

            Ketosis is extremely stressful on the body. If you are loving it then go for it but dont be surprised if you start looking a bit Inuit in a few more months.

            Comment


            • #21
              Stressful how exactly? Have you any references? The head of the Duke University metabolic clinic might disagree with you.
              10/2/12: 169 lbs, 37"waist
              Now: low 150's, 33" waist
              Blog: http://paleopathologist.com/

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jmsmall View Post
                My LDL has not changed much, slightly up, but triglycerides are way down (in the 30's) and HDL has gone from 50 to 77. My cardiologist could not believe it.
                That comes just from eating saturated fat. I'm not in ketosis normally, my trigs are 50 and HDL-C is 80.

                Originally posted by jmsmall View Post
                Of course by more recent data, the LDL-C is not very predictive anyway; Apo-B or LDL-particle count are much better. (The "large fluffy" is also less predictive than particle counts. It's just that on average if you have large fluffy's, you TEND to have lower particle counts.) Non-HDL cholesterol (total minus HDL) is better than LDL as well.
                Well, it gets complicated here. The INTERHEART study really likes the ApoB/ApoA ratio. But MESA likes LDL-P. Looks like everyone likes what they measured -- great surprise :-/ -- and yes, LDL-C isn't that predictive. But the new biomarkers don't make that great advances either.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                  A look at Nora Gedgaudas' website made me very very suspicious of whatever she claims. To put it briefly, she doesn't look credible. Because of that I see no reason to read her book.

                  To give a specific example, one paper in Drumroll's links (Neuroprotective and disease-modifying effects of the ketogenic diet) explicitly talks about neuroprotective effects of ketones. And sure, ketones help with epilepsy, that's been known for quite a while. But Alzheimer's? The paper quotes another paper (Reger et al. (2004)) which has indicated (I haven't read the paper, just the abstract) that feeding people suffering from AD some fat maybe makes them perform better on cognitive tests in the immediate aftermath of that feeding. It's a VERY long jump from there to saying that going in ketosis will lower your risk of Alzheimer's...
                  Really??? You're the one not looking very credible here.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                    Really??? You're the one not looking very credible here.
                    Really really :-P I'm not the one trying to sell you something.

                    The paper is behind the paywall -- you want to buy me a copy? :-D And I'm not sure what your point is -- do you think the authors lied in the abstract, or what?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                      Really really :-P I'm not the one trying to sell you something.

                      The paper is behind the paywall -- you want to buy me a copy? :-D And I'm not sure what your point is -- do you think the authors lied in the abstract, or what?
                      My point is that you say someone "doesn't look credible". Well, I guess that's it then. I guess you have proven that she has nothing valuable to say. Try reading her book before you judge.

                      If you might be capable of opening your mind a tiny crack, I might also suggest the blog of Dr. Georgia Ede called "Diagnosis: Diet". She is a psychiatrist approaching the treatment of many neurological and psychological disorders through the use of ketosis.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        My point is that you say someone "doesn't look credible".
                        Yes. When I read statements like

                        "A single serving of trans-fat in French fries or chips may take up to two years for one’s body to fully eliminate, and its biological effects on your system in the meantime are chaotic"

                        "MSG is an excitotoxin and always does some degree of neurological damage."

                        "We are, in effect, creatures of the Ice Age"

                        (all from Top 10 Nutritional Mistakes | Primal Body Primal Mind Diet and Nutrition)

                        the person making such statements loses credibility with me.

                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        I guess you have proven that she has nothing valuable to say.
                        It was enough for me to come to the opinion that a sufficiently large number of the things she says sound like excited pseudoscientific babble. She certainly says some correct things as well, but if I have to double-check her every word before believing it, what's the point of reading her?

                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        If you might be capable of opening your mind a tiny crack, I might also suggest the blog of Dr. Georgia Ede called "Diagnosis: Diet". She is a psychiatrist approaching the treatment of many neurological and psychological disorders through the use of ketosis.
                        Thanks, I'll take a look.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                          "A single serving of trans-fat in French fries or chips may take up to two years for one’s body to fully eliminate, and its biological effects on your system in the meantime are chaotic"

                          "MSG is an excitotoxin and always does some degree of neurological damage."

                          "We are, in effect, creatures of the Ice Age"

                          (all from Top 10 Nutritional Mistakes | Primal Body Primal Mind Diet and Nutrition)

                          the person making such statements loses credibility with me.

                          It was enough for me to come to the opinion that a sufficiently large number of the things she says sound like excited pseudoscientific babble. She certainly says some correct things as well, but if I have to double-check her every word before believing it, what's the point of reading her?
                          The paper of her's you are quoting is a "Top Ten" list of the most common mistakes people make when dieting. It is not intended to be an exhaustive scientific study. It's an overview post.

                          Every one of those points you quoted, about transfats, MSG, and humanity evolving during ice ages, are covered extensively in her book with all the scientific references to make you happy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            It's an overview post.
                            Right. So even in an overview post she jumps on the alarmist bandwagon, goes on how NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED!, and makes statements that do not pass the laugh test -- that does not bode well for her other writings.

                            Basically, she wildly exaggerates and cherry-picks facts with what I'd call willful disregard for truth.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Every one of those points you quoted, about transfats, MSG, and humanity evolving during ice ages, are covered extensively in her book with all the scientific references to make you happy.
                            LOL. Since we can't debate her, would you, perhaps, care to defend any of those points?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              How is this in any way shape or form "alarmist"? The "Trust no one" comment was a joke ffs. A joke on a very real situation that labeling of products as "organic" and "natural" is often misleading.

                              10) Relying on superficial descriptions such as “natural” or even “organic” on labels to determine whether a food is truly healthy.

                              Here’s where the Food Industry gets you. They hone in on buzzwords they think will sell their product. Terms like “natural” or “organic” are useless if the product in question is loaded with sugar (organic or not) or if the product contains highly processed ingredients and /or additives. Furthermore, labeling laws designed to supposedly “protect the consumer” are dubious, at best. Learn to read the fine print in the actual nutritional analysis on the back and come to understand the ingredient lists. A good rule of thumb where packaged food is concerned is to follow the edicts of ‘The X-Files’ and “Trust No One”. If it wouldn’t look like food to someone wandering around 40,000 years ago with a loin cloth and a spear, it probably isn’t food for you, either!

                              9)Relying on the media, your doctor or even conventional nutritionists/dieticians to provide accurate nutritional information
                              8 ) Believing that junk food “in moderation” is OK.
                              7) Following “government guidelines” or “The Food Pyramid” for healthy eating.
                              6) Thinking that “being slim” means you are healthy—using weight as your litmus of “good health”.
                              5) Using vitamins to “make up for” unhealthy eating habits.
                              4)Believing that exercise can “make up for” unhealthy eating habits.
                              3) The belief that “genetics is destiny”.
                              2) The belief that eating healthy means having to give up enjoyment of food, good flavor, fat, dietary cholesterol or animal source foods.
                              1)The belief or assumption that eating a quality diet is too expensive…or too difficult or complicated to maintain.
                              Perhaps you would care to refute with facts any of her wildly exaggerated and willfully disregarding of the truth statements. To me this looks like a basic paleo 101 template (dare I even say blueprint).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                On Nora's credibility.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X