Lo-carb studies?

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In the news recently was a study that used approximately
what Atkins actually is to treat epilepsy. The concept
was that a severe ketogenic diet works therefore it is
worth testing whether a moderate ketogenic diet would
work. Since on what Atkins actually is you build up to
the point of being just barely in ketosis, it is as
moderate as you can get without expensive testing.

Good example, Doug. I think the concept was that using Atkins, which is
pretty simple, doctors could kinda screen the kids. If they improved on
Atkins, it might indicate that they would be a good candidate for the more
stringent ketogenic diet successfully used for kids with epilepsy.

Quoted message said:

PCOS - Many report relieved symptoms.

PCOS patients, I believe, are typically severely insulin resistant. As I
understand it, a low-carb diet helps mitigate the insulin resistance,
thereby reducing a lot of their symptoms and helping to normalize endocrine
function. So it's kind of an unusual and not-very-well-understood variant on
insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome that includes some other hormonal
abnormalities.

Quoted message said:

Crones disease and
other forms of IBS - Grain is a common source of lower
digestive problems. Migraines - I haven't seen any
marketing about it but it is mentioned in a couple of the
Atkins books that folks following the process tend to not
get migraines (I've gone from 3-5 per year to 1 in 6 years
since starting).

With any self-immune or degenerative disease it could be
worth trying the eliminate-and-challenge half of Atkins
on the principle that diet at least contributes to the
symptoms.

Eliminating or cutting back on certain foods usually does benefit certain
people, in that they find symptoms and disease conditions that were
(unknowingly) caused or exacerbated by those foods decreasing or going away
altogether. Grains are probably a big issue for many people. Auto-immune
dieseases often respond to that kind of dietary manipulation. And low-carb
diets often help, although the improvement may have more to do with what
foods are eliminated or severely reduced. There are also many people who go
on the opposite sort of diet who report the same kinds of relief from things
like arthritis, migraines, crones disease, other autoimmune diseases. Which
is why I think it has more to do with specific foods, and perhaps just
eating more vegetables and whole foods and less junk, than any specific
macronutrient ratio.

HG

Hannah Gruen said:

"Bev-Ann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And this clearly shows that LC is not just for diabetes, obesity and
metabolic syndrome as has been suggested by someone on this ng.

I don't get your point here, Bev. It seems like these things, and the
symptoms they include pretty much make up most or all the reasons people
low-carb. The list of diseases/symptoms associated with metabolic syndrome
is a very large one.

Yeah, but you know I've been casually watching this and a related thread
for a while and I see one problem. There seems to be an assumption that
everyone who has some of the factors that are correlated w/ metabolic
syndrome necessarily *has* metabolic syndrome.

I was fat all my life and at my heaviest I was definitely obese (220 on a
5'6" small boned frame), even now I'm not skinny (145, which puts my BMI
at around 24.5, but the calipers say I'm a bit over 30%BF). I found losing
weight very easy while doing low carb.

So, it would seem that that would indicate that I'm metabolically
resistant - except that by pretty much all the standards, I wasn't and am
not. My fat distribution was always pear shaped, my HDL was always high,
when I tested my BG levels for fun (including some tests off-plan) my
levels were mostly quite stable and there were a couple of other factors
that I've since forgotten which were markers of ms that didn't jibe w/ my
profile.

I think that, for me, the reason low carb works really well is that it's
an adequate protein diet. Doing low fat, I ate much lower totals of
protein during the day than I do now, and my perception is that that is
one of the main reasons I was hungry all the time.

So, my experience leads me to believe that not everyone who is fat and
benefits from low carb necessarily has metabolic syndrome. I think,
rather, that there are probably several mechanisms at work here that make
this a good way of eating for many people (and, quite possibly, some which
do make it less satisfactory for others).

Quoted message said:

What other conditions for which LC is marketed, that do not fit into those
categories, are you aware of?

I can't say that LC is marketed for this, but it's one of the selling
points that *I* make about the diet when I talk to people about it (well,
if I know them well enough). When I was doing a high carb diet I had
really bad gas much of the time. Since I started low carbing, that's
pretty much taken care of itself. Even if I hadn't had all the other
benefits that I have from low carb that in itself might have been enough
to make me make the switch.

Oh, and my rosacea cleared up.

Martha

--

This
is
just
to
get
around
this
newsreader's
requirement
that
you
have
more
lines
of
new
text
than
quoted
material.

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes
Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, CVD are all related to metabolic
syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is
marketed to?

The generally active, oddly enough.

http://www.michelob.com/michelob_site.html

Check out the TV ads for Mick Ultra.

-Hollywood, who should have so much fun drinking beer.

x-no-archive: yes

Hannah Gruen said:

Well, no, actually I wasn't kidding. You are the one who always seems to
have an interesting paper or two to post, and who also seems to actually
understand them. OK, be modest. lol!

I am an information junkie, but I just find the stuff, I don't have
expertise independent of it, other than personal experience. Honest.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. :-)

Quoted message said:

Oh, I wasn't referring to Bev-Ann. She's a nice sort, as far as I've been
able to tell, but somehow there has been some miscommunication between you
two and it's likely kind of temporary. But there is always a tendency for
folks to fail to understand that *their* experience is not necessarily
applicable to everyone (or even anyone) else. Heck, I even do that sometimes
and I *know* better.

You're nicer than I am. I think she was baiting, though lamely.

Quoted message said:

I was remembering some of the abuse people like Lee used to take from a few
individuals who just seemed to want to knock him down a peg. And feisty as
Lee is, it got a little ugly sometimes. He was such a great resource,
though.

He often had good information, true. But it seems he only posts here
occasionally to take a nasty, profane cheap shot at someone and leave.
I can't remember the last time he posted constructively, and I've been
here since the late 90s, I think. Also, a lot of his information came
straight from the highly unreliable LEF website. I honestly can't recall
others taking issue with his information, but that may have been before
my time?

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Hannah Gruen said:

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In the news recently was a study that used approximately
what Atkins actually is to treat epilepsy. The concept
was that a severe ketogenic diet works therefore it is
worth testing whether a moderate ketogenic diet would
work. Since on what Atkins actually is you build up to
the point of being just barely in ketosis, it is as
moderate as you can get without expensive testing.

Good example, Doug. I think the concept was that using Atkins, which is
pretty simple, doctors could kinda screen the kids. If they improved on
Atkins, it might indicate that they would be a good candidate for the more
stringent ketogenic diet successfully used for kids with epilepsy.

I haven't seen this study, but it's a move in the right direction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

PCOS - Many report relieved symptoms.

PCOS patients, I believe, are typically severely insulin resistant. As I
understand it, a low-carb diet helps mitigate the insulin resistance,
thereby reducing a lot of their symptoms and helping to normalize endocrine
function. So it's kind of an unusual and not-very-well-understood variant on
insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome that includes some other hormonal
abnormalities.

PCOS is what brought me to low carb; I got sick of constant cysts,
researched the causes on Medline and the only thing I could find was IR
and diabetes. What a shock; I was on the Ornish plan and got sicker and
sicker!

I had my last cyst and my last bout of fibromyalgia the day I cut out
starch and sugar. PCOS is caused by IR; the other abnormalities are
caused by excess androgens produced by the ovaries in response to
hyperinsulinemia.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Martha S. Gallagher said:

Yeah, but you know I've been casually watching this and a related thread
for a while and I see one problem. There seems to be an assumption that
everyone who has some of the factors that are correlated w/ metabolic
syndrome necessarily *has* metabolic syndrome.

I was fat all my life and at my heaviest I was definitely obese (220 on
a 5'6" small boned frame), even now I'm not skinny (145, which puts my
BMI at around 24.5, but the calipers say I'm a bit over 30%BF). I found
losing weight very easy while doing low carb.

So, it would seem that that would indicate that I'm metabolically
resistant - except that by pretty much all the standards, I wasn't and
am not.

Okay, but what does that have to do with metabolic syndrome?

Quoted message said:

My fat distribution was always pear shaped, my HDL was always
high, when I tested my BG levels for fun (including some tests off-plan)
my levels were mostly quite stable and there were a couple of other
factors that I've since forgotten which were markers of ms that didn't
jibe w/ my profile.

I think the point I made was that the obese PLUS those with metabolic
syndrome make up most of the U.S. population. Not that all obese folks
have the syndrome, though I believe most do, or at least components of it.

Quoted message said:

I think that, for me, the reason low carb works really well is that it's
an adequate protein diet. Doing low fat, I ate much lower totals of
protein during the day than I do now, and my perception is that that is
one of the main reasons I was hungry all the time.

This is very possible.

Quoted message said:

So, my experience leads me to believe that not everyone who is fat and
benefits from low carb necessarily has metabolic syndrome.

Ok. But who said they did?

I think,

Quoted message said:

rather, that there are probably several mechanisms at work here that
make this a good way of eating for many people (and, quite possibly,
some which do make it less satisfactory for others).

Sure.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Max Hollywood Harris said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes
Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, CVD are all related to metabolic
syndrome. Can you tell me all the *other* groups that low carbing is
marketed to?

The generally active, oddly enough.

http://www.michelob.com/michelob_site.html

Check out the TV ads for Mick Ultra.

-Hollywood, who should have so much fun drinking beer.

I meant low carb diets, not products.

Susan

"Martha S. Gallagher" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Yeah, but you know I've been casually watching this and a related thread
for a while and I see one problem. There seems to be an assumption that
everyone who has some of the factors that are correlated w/ metabolic
syndrome necessarily *has* metabolic syndrome.

Martha, it's my impression that there is a lot of uncertainty about exactly
what metabolic syndrome entails, and how it begins and progresses. When it's
well-developed, and many of the symptoms have become evident, it's fairly
obvious. But it is apparently a "disease" that takes decades to develop. And
accordingly, many of the "markers", such as blood lipid parameters or blood
glucose abnormalities, may not show up for a long time. And yet the person
may well be in the early stages of the syndrome. Or not, it's just not
definitively diagnosable until the person reaches a relatively late stage.
Even at the late stage, each person will have a different set of symptoms,
not necessarily all of them, and they may show up in a different order in
each person. Some people exhibit Type II diabetes (part of the syndrome)
very early on, some never get to that point, or they will have a heart
attack early on. Etc.

For what it's worth, obesity/overweight is often considered to be one of the
classic early symptoms of the syndrome, because the increase in insulin
levels does tend to affect appetite in most people.

HG

"Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

He often had good information, true. But it seems he only posts here
occasionally to take a nasty, profane cheap shot at someone and leave.
I can't remember the last time he posted constructively, and I've been
here since the late 90s, I think. Also, a lot of his information came
straight from the highly unreliable LEF website. I honestly can't recall
others taking issue with his information, but that may have been before my
time?

Possibly. He was always kinda cantankerous, even when making a lot of useful
contributions. That in itself tends to be kind of a lightening rod for
personal attack. And as with Lyle, the attacks usually seemed to be
motivated more by someone wanting to take the "expert" down a couple pegs,
rather than a genuine controversy over the information.

HG

x-no-archive: yes

Hannah Gruen said:

Possibly. He was always kinda cantankerous, even when making a lot of useful
contributions.

This I recall vividly. :-)

That in itself tends to be kind of a lightening rod for

Quoted message said:

personal attack. And as with Lyle, the attacks usually seemed to be
motivated more by someone wanting to take the "expert" down a couple pegs,
rather than a genuine controversy over the information.

Maybe, but each sure gave the opposition an attractive target, no?
Perhaps the fact that each one cared too much about being acknowledged
as expert?

Susan

"Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That in itself tends to be kind of a lightening rod for
personal attack. And as with Lyle, the attacks usually seemed to be
motivated more by someone wanting to take the "expert" down a couple
pegs, rather than a genuine controversy over the information.

Maybe, but each sure gave the opposition an attractive target, no? Perhaps
the fact that each one cared too much about being acknowledged as expert?

Yes, definitely both make good targets. Heh. And yes, I think both like
being seen as an expert. Especially Lyle, but then he actually IS an expert.
Lee... I'm not sure it was that so much as extreme irritation at people who
clearly had never bothered to gain any understanding of the subject, but
would have what seemed like the chutzpah to argue endless with him, someone
who had worked very hard to understand it. I find that irritation
understandable, actually, being the sometimes less-than-patient person that
I am.

HG