General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

What percentage of a cholesterol decrease can be attributed to statins ?

Started by Joe Smigiel · · Last activity · 288 posts · 5,989 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
4 October 2003
Last activity
2 November 2003
Original author
Joe Smigiel
Posts
288
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
5,989
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 181–200 of 288
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Matti Narkia said:

    15 Oct 2003 10:01:31 -0700 in article
    <[email hidden]> [email hidden] (Dr.

    Andrew B. Chung said:

    Matti Narkia <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:27:20 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>
    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    >Ketones remain a physiologically bad thing.
    >
    Please elaborate. References?

    Drink a bottle of acetone (a ketone) and get back with us about your experience.

    Is that your medical advice?

    If you want medical advice, you'll have to call my office for an appointment.

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  2. Quoted message said:
    MD/PhD said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Ime, you still run the risk of rapid regain as described above.

    But what would be the mechanism for this regain?

    See above.

    Much too vague. No useful information. Seems like a low probability.
    I'm not worried.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    I have NO desire to
    eat other foods.

    Perhaps at this point in time. Can you really say you never will have?

    I am stating the probability, which is, of course, never 100%, but
    still quite high.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I have, for many years, had more than 2 pounds of vegetables each day.
    As part of my lunch, I had a pound of vegetables, and the total
    calories, as given on the package, were about 170. Add another 20-30
    calories for the delicious sauce and we're at about 200. Some protein
    and a few carbs brought it to about 600. I was QUITE full and TOTALLY
    satisfied, largely because of the vegis and spices. It also has a LOT
    of nutrition built in. Tell me what's wrong with this approach?

    The quantity is a problem.

    Why is it a problem? Too many calories (not true)? Too much fat (not
    true)? Wrong kind of fat (not true)? Why, EXACTLY, is quantity the
    problem, assuming I eat as described and do NOT gain weight?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I have been free for years to change to another diet, but I have no
    desire to do so. Why would I change?

    Only you and God would know.

    The half that I know says there will not be a change.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Are you suggesting that I have
    some deep, hidden "preference" that has not come out despite years of
    opportunity to do so?

    It remains possible.

    Probabilities are more important than possibilities. It is POSSIBLE
    that both of us could be killed simultaneously, each by a 10.45 pound
    meteorite. Who cares? The probability is too low to worry about.

    Would you agree that the probability of "rapid regain" is low, based
    on what has been happening for years? If not, please tell me what
    mechanism would reverse the probability so drastically? It is POSSIBLE
    that I could get some malady to cause me to gorge myself, as you
    suggest. Is that PROBABLE, given what you know?

    vic

    If you had a handle on the amount of food you are eating, rapid weight regain
    would be impossible.

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  3. Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:17:13 GMT in article
    <[email hidden]> Matti Narkia <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:43:41 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:
    Matti Narkia said:

    Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:25:22 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>
    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >> It's true that type 2 diabetes
    >> is much more common with overweight people, but normal bodyweight does not give
    >> 100% protection against it.
    >>
    >
    >Ime, it does seem to do exactly that.

    Not true.

    Sorry, it is the truth.

    Tell that to my in-law and have a look at the

    Type 2 Diabetes in Children and
    A d o l e s c e n t s
    C O N S E N S U S S T A T E M E N T
    AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION
    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/23/3/381.pdf

    From page 2:

    "... As noted above, obesity is a hallmark of type 2 diabetes, with
    up to 85% of affected children either overweight or obese at
    diagnosis. ..."

    IMHO 85% is less than 100%.

    Here some additional evidence for those, who still may not convinced that even
    normal weight people can get type 2 diabetes (although risk is very small):

    Goodpaster BH, Krishnaswami S, Resnick H, Kelley DE, Haggerty C, Harris TB,
    Schwartz AV, Kritchevsky S, Newman AB. Related Articles, Links
    Association between regional adipose tissue distribution and both type 2
    diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in elderly men and women.
    Diabetes Care. 2003 Feb;26(2):372-9.
    PMID: 12547865 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12547865&dopt=Abstract

    "CONCLUSIONS: Elderly men and women with normal body weight may be at
    risk for metabolic abnormalities, including type 2 diabetes, if they
    possess an inordinate amount of muscle fat or visceral abdominal
    fat."

    NORMAL WEIGHT ELDERLY STILL MAY BE AT RISK FOR DEVELOPING DIABETES, ACCORDING
    TO UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH STUDY
    PITTSBURGH, Feb. 13, 2003
    http://newsbureau.upmc.com/medsurg1/goodpasterdiabetescarestudy.htm

    "“Our study found that, even though an elderly person may not be
    overweight, he or she might still be at risk for developing
    diabetes,” said Bret H. Goodpaster, Ph.D., of the University of
    Pittsburgh division of endocrinology and metabolism and principal
    investigator of the study.

    [...]

    The study found that among those with type 2 diabetes, 22 percent
    were normal-weight men and 12 percent were normal-weight women.
    Another 14 percent of men and 22 percent of women had impaired
    glucose tolerance. Taken from another perspective, this means that
    two thirds of men with type 2 diabetes were not obese. A similar
    pattern emerged for women."

    eMJA: 1: Epidemiology and prevention of type 2 diabetes and the metabolic
    syndrome
    http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_07_061003/sha10375_fm.html

    "Type 2 diabetes is a complex metabolic disorder characterised by
    hyperglycaemia and associated with a relative deficiency of insulin
    secretion, along with a reduced response of target tissues to insulin
    (insulin resistance). Its metabolic and clinical features are
    heterogeneous; people with type 2 diabetes range from those of normal
    weight or underweight with a predominant deficiency of insulin
    secretion (in whom slowly evolving type 1 diabetes should be
    considered) to the more common obese person with substantial insulin
    resistance."

    Is Hyperglycemia the Major Culprit in Diabetes or Simply a Marker of
    Endothelial Dysfunction?
    Eric S. Freedland, MD
    http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/friedman/Counter4.shtml

    "At least 90 percent of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
    While simply being overweight is a risk for type 2 diabetes, one must
    also bear in mind that a subset of non-obese adults without apparent
    glucose abnormalities can rapidly develop type 2 diabetes, which may
    be attributable to an autoimmune and inflammatory process."

    Pharmacological therapy for Type 2 diabetes
    http://www.medforum.nl/idm/pharmacological_therapy_for____.htm

    "The author recommends sulfonylurea treatment as monotherapy in
    normal weight Type 2 diabetics and metformin in those who are
    overweight."

    --
    Matti Narkia

  4. Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:12:42 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:


    If you want medical advice, you'll have to call my office for an appointment.

    With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.

    --
    Matti Narkia

  5. Matti Narkia said:

    <snip>Is Hyperglycemia the Major Culprit in Diabetes or Simply a Marker of
    Endothelial Dysfunction?
    Eric S. Freedland, MD
    http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/friedman/Counter4.shtml

    "At least 90 percent of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
    While simply being overweight is a risk for type 2 diabetes, one must
    also bear in mind that a subset of non-obese adults without apparent
    glucose abnormalities can rapidly develop type 2 diabetes, which may
    be attributable to an autoimmune and inflammatory process."

    The latter would not be true type 2 diabetes but rather more akin to type 1 since there would be islet
    cell failure.

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  6. Matti Narkia said:

    Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:12:42 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:


    If you want medical advice, you'll have to call my office for an appointment.

    With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.

    Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  7. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "At least 90 percent of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
    While simply being overweight is a risk for type 2 diabetes, one must
    also bear in mind that a subset of non-obese adults without apparent
    glucose abnormalities can rapidly develop type 2 diabetes, which may
    be attributable to an autoimmune and inflammatory process."

    The latter would not be true type 2 diabetes but rather more akin to type 1 since there would be islet
    cell failure.

    Sure sounds like it, unless he's speculating about an attack outside the
    islets that mimics/causes type 2. Some sort of systemic autoimmune activity is
    possible, but this looks like no more than speculation to me.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

  8. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.

    Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?

    Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to put the
    science first?

    I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in this
    science newsgroup.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

  9. MD/PhD said:
    Quoted message said:

    Probabilities are more important than possibilities. It is POSSIBLE
    that both of us could be killed simultaneously, each by a 10.45 pound
    meteorite. Who cares? The probability is too low to worry about.

    Would you agree that the probability of "rapid regain" is low, based
    on what has been happening for years? If not, please tell me what
    mechanism would reverse the probability so drastically? It is POSSIBLE
    that I could get some malady to cause me to gorge myself, as you
    suggest. Is that PROBABLE, given what you know?

    vic

    If you had a handle on the amount of food you are eating, rapid weight regain
    would be impossible.

    I don't want to get in a debate about your 2 pound diet. You seem to
    be getting enough debate as it is, and I don't want to add to it.
    Given the somewhat extreme nature of the debate, perhaps it is too
    hard for you to admit, on this list, that another approach might be
    good.

    I would say that if you had a handle on the TYPE of food you are
    eating, rapid weight regain would be impossible. The basis for this is
    that if I wish, I can STUFF myself, 3 times a day, with well over 2
    pounds of food total. I feel perfectly satisfied, get excellent
    nutrition, and never gain weight. It seems to work at least as well as
    any diet I have seen, and much better than most in the long run.

    I will end with this, though, so as not to open another front in the
    assault. <g>

    vic

  10. Quoted message said:
    MD/PhD said:
    Quoted message said:

    Probabilities are more important than possibilities. It is POSSIBLE
    that both of us could be killed simultaneously, each by a 10.45 pound
    meteorite. Who cares? The probability is too low to worry about.

    Would you agree that the probability of "rapid regain" is low, based
    on what has been happening for years? If not, please tell me what
    mechanism would reverse the probability so drastically? It is POSSIBLE
    that I could get some malady to cause me to gorge myself, as you
    suggest. Is that PROBABLE, given what you know?

    vic

    If you had a handle on the amount of food you are eating, rapid weight regain
    would be impossible.

    I don't want to get in a debate about your 2 pound diet. You seem to
    be getting enough debate as it is, and I don't want to add to it.
    Given the somewhat extreme nature of the debate, perhaps it is too
    hard for you to admit, on this list, that another approach might be
    good.

    Closely supervised feedings might be good :-)

    Quoted message said:


    I would say that if you had a handle on the TYPE of food you are
    eating, rapid weight regain would be impossible.

    Actually, all-you-can-eat of any TYPE of food makes rapid weight regain possible.

    Quoted message said:

    The basis for this is
    that if I wish, I can STUFF myself, 3 times a day, with well over 2
    pounds of food total. I feel perfectly satisfied, get excellent
    nutrition, and never gain weight.

    That would be a logically flawed basis.

    Quoted message said:

    It seems to work at least as well as
    any diet I have seen, and much better than most in the long run.

    In other words, it would not work.

    Quoted message said:


    I will end with this, though, so as not to open another front in the
    assault. <g>

    vic

    See:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  11. Jim Chinnis said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.

    Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?

    Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to put the
    science first?

    I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in this
    science newsgroup.

    Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad rather than find
    out from drinking a bottle of it.

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  12. MD/PhD said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you had a handle on the amount of food you are eating, rapid weight regain
    would be impossible.

    I don't want to get in a debate about your 2 pound diet. You seem to
    be getting enough debate as it is, and I don't want to add to it.
    Given the somewhat extreme nature of the debate, perhaps it is too
    hard for you to admit, on this list, that another approach might be
    good.

    Closely supervised feedings might be good :-)

    Your range of alternatives leaves out a lot of rather good
    possibilities.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I would say that if you had a handle on the TYPE of food you are
    eating, rapid weight regain would be impossible.

    Actually, all-you-can-eat of any TYPE of food makes rapid weight regain possible.

    That's NOT what I said. You are twisting my words, and I do not
    appreciate it. Read MY statement again. I was assuming my "had a
    handle" means the same as your "had a handle". You conveniently left
    that out of your answer, which distorted the meaning of what I said.

    Since I seem to have to spell it out for you, what I mean is that you
    can eat enough to stuff yourself IF you "had a handle" on it, meaning
    you CONTROL the TYPE of food. In the specific case I am discussing the
    food you can stuff yourself with has about 200 cal/pound. I normally
    can't eat more than about 1.5 pounds at a meal, because I am stuffed.
    So, if I stuffed myself for all 3 meals, I would have about 900 cal.
    I'm NOT going to get fat on 900 cal/day. Do you think I will get fat
    on 900 cal/day?

    I can't wait to see how you twist this one so you won't have to admit
    that someone can eat more than 2 pounds a day, for an extended period,
    and not gain weight. <g>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The basis for this is
    that if I wish, I can STUFF myself, 3 times a day, with well over 2
    pounds of food total. I feel perfectly satisfied, get excellent
    nutrition, and never gain weight.

    That would be a logically flawed basis.

    See the above. (One of your favorites. <g>😉

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It seems to work at least as well as
    any diet I have seen, and much better than most in the long run.

    In other words, it would not work.

    Why not? Are you saying I, or anyone else, will get fat on 900
    cal/day? If they will not get fat, then the diet will work.

    We already know, from my experience, that I can maintain it for an
    extended period. I have tried others, even those prescribed by
    doctors, and they are MUCH harder to stay on than my present one.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I will end with this, though, so as not to open another front in the
    assault. <g>

    Actually, I won't just yet because I don't like people twisting my
    words just so they won't have to admit something. I'm beginning to
    understand why you generate so much animosity here.

    I guess it IS too hard to admit. You are really doing a disservice to
    others by presenting such a biased discussion, especially under the
    guise of a doctor. Too bad. I was hoping for something better.

    vic

  13. Quoted message said:
    MD/PhD said:
    Quoted message said:

    >If you had a handle on the amount of food you are eating, rapid weight regain
    >would be impossible.

    I don't want to get in a debate about your 2 pound diet. You seem to
    be getting enough debate as it is, and I don't want to add to it.
    Given the somewhat extreme nature of the debate, perhaps it is too
    hard for you to admit, on this list, that another approach might be
    good.

    Closely supervised feedings might be good :-)

    Your range of alternatives leaves out a lot of rather good
    possibilities.

    Did someone ask for a range?

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I would say that if you had a handle on the TYPE of food you are
    eating, rapid weight regain would be impossible.

    Actually, all-you-can-eat of any TYPE of food makes rapid weight regain possible.

    That's NOT what I said.

    If you don't have a handle on quantity, that is what you mean.

    Quoted message said:

    You are twisting my words,

    Hardly.

    Quoted message said:

    and I do not
    appreciate it.

    Some folks can't handle the truth.

    Quoted message said:

    Read MY statement again.

    Have already.

    Quoted message said:

    I was assuming my "had a
    handle" means the same as your "had a handle".

    Doesn't it?

    Quoted message said:

    You conveniently left
    that out of your answer, which distorted the meaning of what I said.

    Hardly.

    Quoted message said:


    Since I seem to have to spell it out for you, what I mean is that you
    can eat enough to stuff yourself IF you "had a handle" on it, meaning
    you CONTROL the TYPE of food.

    You just contradicted yourself.

    Quoted message said:

    In the specific case I am discussing the
    food you can stuff yourself with has about 200 cal/pound. I normally
    can't eat more than about 1.5 pounds at a meal,

    Glad to hear that you have come around to weighing your food.

    Congratulations, you now have a handle on what you are eating and drinking.

    Quoted message said:

    because I am stuffed.
    So, if I stuffed myself for all 3 meals, I would have about 900 cal.
    I'm NOT going to get fat on 900 cal/day. Do you think I will get fat
    on 900 cal/day?

    Not if you have a handle on the quantity of food & drink you are taking in.

    Quoted message said:


    I can't wait to see how you twist this one so you won't have to admit
    that someone can eat more than 2 pounds a day, for an extended period,
    and not gain weight. <g>

    A person who is stuffing himself or herself runs the risk of rapid regain of any
    weight that may have been lost on any diet.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The basis for this is
    that if I wish, I can STUFF myself, 3 times a day, with well over 2
    pounds of food total. I feel perfectly satisfied, get excellent
    nutrition, and never gain weight.

    That would be a logically flawed basis.

    See the above. (One of your favorites. <g>😉

    Yes, please do.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It seems to work at least as well as
    any diet I have seen, and much better than most in the long run.

    In other words, it would not work.

    Why not? Are you saying I, or anyone else, will get fat on 900
    cal/day? If they will not get fat, then the diet will work.

    See above.

    Quoted message said:


    We already know, from my experience, that I can maintain it for an
    extended period. I have tried others, even those prescribed by
    doctors, and they are MUCH harder to stay on than my present one.

    Ask your doctor about trying the 2PD approach as described at:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I will end with this, though, so as not to open another front in the
    assault. <g>

    Actually, I won't just yet because I don't like people twisting my
    words just so they won't have to admit something. I'm beginning to
    understand why you generate so much animosity here.

    Simply writing truthfully.

    Quoted message said:


    I guess it IS too hard to admit. You are really doing a disservice to
    others by presenting such a biased discussion, especially under the
    guise of a doctor.

    Not a guise. Sorry.

    Quoted message said:

    Too bad. I was hoping for something better.

    Here is my better:

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

    God's humble servant,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

  14. Quoted message said:

    I don't want to get in a debate about your 2 pound diet. You seem to
    be getting enough debate as it is, and I don't want to add to it.

    You just did and thanks.

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031011.html
    Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

  15. Quoted message said:

    I can't wait to see how you twist this one so you won't have to admit
    that someone can eat more than 2 pounds a day,

    There you go again, obsessing about the 2PDiet!!

    http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031011.html
    Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

  16. Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:51:50 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:
    Jim Chinnis said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    > With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.
    >
    >

    Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?

    Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to put the
    science first?

    I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in this
    science newsgroup.

    Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad rather than find
    out from drinking a bottle of it.

    Hmmm ... Let's find out how bad a ketogenic diet really is by reading a couple
    of citations from the study:

    Sharman MJ, Kraemer WJ, Love DM, Avery NG, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Volek JS.
    A ketogenic diet favorably affects serum biomarkers for cardiovascular disease
    in normal-weight men.
    J Nutr. 2002 Jul;132(7):1879-85.
    PMID: 12097663 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/7/1879 (full text)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12097663&dopt=Abstract

    "... There were significant decreases in fasting serum TAG (-33%),
    postprandial lipemia after a fat-rich meal (-29%), and fasting serum
    insulin concentrations (-34%) after men consumed the ketogenic diet.
    Fasting serum total and LDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL were
    unaffected and HDL cholesterol tended to increase with the ketogenic
    diet (+11.5%; P = 0.066). In subjects with a predominance of small
    LDL particles pattern B, there were significant increases in mean and
    peak LDL particle diameter and the percentage of LDL-1 after the
    ketogenic diet. There were no significant changes in blood lipids in
    the control group. To our knowledge this is the first study to
    document the effects of a ketogenic diet on fasting and postprandial
    CVD biomarkers independent of weight loss. The results suggest that a
    short-term ketogenic diet does not have a deleterious effect on CVD
    risk profile and may improve the lipid disorders characteristic of
    atherogenic dyslipidemia.

    [...]

    There were changes in the distribution of the LDL subfractions that
    would be considered favorable in terms of CVD. We observed general
    increases in the mean and peak LDL particle sizes during the
    ketogenic diet, which were more pronounced in subjects that exhibited
    a pattern B distribution at the start of the study. Individuals with
    pattern B exhibit a predominance of small dense lipoproteins and this
    distribution is associated with increased risk of CVD (13 ,14 ) and
    was recently shown to be the best discriminate factor for the
    presence of CVD even when adjusting for other risk factors (21 ).
    Although the characterization of pattern B is likely to have a
    genetic origin (22 ), changes in diet are known to influence the
    distribution of LDL subclasses. For example, switching to a fat-rich
    diet (46% vs. 24% of total energy) was shown to increase mean
    particle diameter and large LDL-1 mass and decrease small dense LDL-
    III cholesterol (28 ), while reductions in dietary fat have the
    opposite effect (6 ,7 ). Despite the changes in LDL size, we did not
    observe any significant changes in oxidized LDL concentrations.
    Collectively these studies indicate that when dietary fat is reduced,
    the distribution of LDL moves toward a smaller more dense particle
    and when dietary fat is increased the distribution of LDL moves
    toward a larger less dense particle. The reason some individuals are
    more stable in their LDL subclass distribution in response to changes
    in diet is unknown but is likely to reflect complex interactions
    between metabolic and genetic traits that are influenced to varying
    extents depending on the level of dietary fat (1 ,7 ).

    We observed a significant decrease in fasting and postprandial
    insulin responses after the ketogenic diet. Decreases in resting
    insulin concentrations have been reported in response to 3–4 d of a
    low-carbohydrate diet high in fat (34 –38 ). The mechanism for such a
    response probably resides in the greater reliance on fat oxidation
    induced by dietary carbohydrate restriction (39 ) and subsequent
    reduced requirement for insulin to assist in glucose uptake. To our
    knowledge, the reduced postprandial insulin response to a fat-rich
    meal observed after a ketogenic diet has not been reported in the
    literature. According to our estimate of insulin resistance using
    fasting levels of glucose and insulin, subjects in this study were
    not insulin resistant and there was no adverse effect of the
    ketogenic diet on insulin sensitivity. This is in agreement with
    other studies showing no adverse effects on glucose metabolism or
    insulin resistance after ketogenic diets using the insulin clamp
    technique (40 ,41 ).

    Numerous studies now suggest that high-carbohydrate diets can raise
    TAG levels, create small, dense LDL particles, and reduce HDL
    cholesterol (i.e., atherogenic dyslipidemia)—a combination along with
    insulin resistance, that has been termed syndrome X (42 ,43 ).
    Syndrome X is postulated to be resistance to insulin-mediated glucose
    disposal by muscle (44 ), 30% of adult males and 10% to 15% of
    postmenopausal women have this particular syndrome X profile, which
    is associated with several-fold increase in heart disease risk.
    Replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate appears to accentuate
    insulin concentrations and the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated
    with syndrome X (44 ,45 ). The ketogenic diet in this study resulted
    in favorable responses in fasting TAG, postprandial lipemia, HDL-C,
    LDL particle size, and insulin levels in healthy normolipidemic men.
    Although the duration of the diet was short (6 wk), these data
    suggest that a ketogenic diet does not have an adverse effect on
    accepted biochemical risk factors for CVD and improves those
    associated with syndrome X."

    As for high-carbohydrate diets I repeat the following quote from above:

    "Numerous studies now suggest that high-carbohydrate diets can raise
    TAG levels, create small, dense LDL particles, and reduce HDL
    cholesterol (i.e., atherogenic dyslipidemia)—a combination along with
    insulin resistance, that has been termed syndrome X (42 ,43 )"

    Doesn't sound too good?

    See also

    Ketogenic Diet Reduces Seizures In Many Children, Hopkins Researchers Find
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011001071818.htm

    Hemingway C, Freeman JM, Pillas DJ, Pyzik PL.
    The ketogenic diet: a 3- to 6-year follow-up of 150 children enrolled
    prospectively.
    Pediatrics. 2001 Oct;108(4):898-905.
    PMID: 11581442 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11581442&dopt=Abstract

    "... CONCLUSION: Three to 6 years after initiation, the ketogenic
    diet had proven to be effective in the control of difficult-to-
    control seizures in children. The diet often allows decrease or
    discontinuation of medication. It is more effective than many of the
    newer anticonvulsants and is well-tolerated when it is effective."

    --
    Matti Narkia

  17. Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:30:34 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:
    Thorsten Schier said:

    However, a very-low-carbohydrate
    diet improves all aspects of
    atherogenic dyslipidemia, decreasing fasting
    and postprandial triglyceride levels, increasing
    HDL, increasing LDL size, and decreasing
    insulin, independent of weight loss.14,23"

    Ime, this effect has not been independent of weight loss. Without weight loss, LC dieters rarely improve their lipid
    profile.


    Sharman et al. found that this is not true. See below:

    Sharman MJ, Kraemer WJ, Love DM, Avery NG, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Volek JS.
    A ketogenic diet favorably affects serum biomarkers for cardiovascular disease
    in normal-weight men.
    J Nutr. 2002 Jul;132(7):1879-85.
    PMID: 12097663 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/7/1879 (full text)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12097663&dopt=Abstract

    "ABSTRACT
    Very low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets are popular yet little is
    known regarding the effects on serum biomarkers for cardiovascular
    disease (CVD). This study examined the effects of a 6-wk ketogenic
    diet on fasting and postprandial serum biomarkers in 20 normal-
    weight, normolipidemic men. Twelve men switched from their habitual
    diet (17% protein, 47% carbohydrate and 32% fat) to a ketogenic diet
    (30% protein, 8% carbohydrate and 61% fat) and eight control
    subjects consumed their habitual diet for 6 wk. Fasting blood
    lipids, insulin, LDL particle size, oxidized LDL and postprandial
    triacylglycerol (TAG) and insulin responses to a fat- rich meal were
    determined before and after treatment. There were significant
    decreases in fasting serum TAG (-33%), postprandial lipemia after a
    fat-rich meal (-29%), and fasting serum insulin concentrations
    (-34%) after men consumed the ketogenic diet. Fasting serum total
    and LDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL were unaffected and HDL
    cholesterol tended to increase with the ketogenic diet (+11.5%; P =
    0.066). In subjects with a predominance of small LDL particles
    pattern B, there were significant increases in mean and peak LDL
    particle diameter and the percentage of LDL-1 after the ketogenic
    diet. There were no significant changes in blood lipids in the
    control group. To our knowledge this is the first study to document
    the effects of a ketogenic diet on fasting and postprandial CVD
    biomarkers independent of weight loss. The results suggest that a
    short-term ketogenic diet does not have a deleterious effect on CVD
    risk profile and may improve the lipid disorders characteristic of
    atherogenic dyslipidemia."

    --
    Matti Narkia

  18. Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:40:27 GMT in article
    <[email hidden]> Matti Narkia <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:04:47 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:
    Quoted message said:

    comes to the merits of low-carb diets.


    Pray tell why are you a big proponent of low-carb diets when there is obviously minimal data to support it despite its 30
    year history?

    That seems to be changing. There have been recently some good quality studies,
    which were mentioned here, and the following yesterday's news article tells
    about yet another study:

    Low-Carb Diets Are Working, Study Says
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=534&e=4&u=/ap/20031013/ap_on_he_me/low_carb_mystery
    http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/fitness/articles/2003/10/13/low_carb_diets_are_working_study_says/


    Actually, there seems to be also quite old low carb studies in the medline, if
    one bothers look for them. Here some:

    1: Rabast U, Vornberger KH, Ehl M.
    Loss of weight, sodium and water in obese persons consuming a high- or
    low-carbohydrate diet.
    Ann Nutr Metab. 1981;25(6):341-9.
    PMID: 7332312 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7332312&dopt=Abstract

    Abstract:

    "Isocaloric 5.61 mJ (1,340 kcal) formula diets involving the
    isocaloric exchange of fat and carbohydrate were fed to 21 obese
    persons selected for sex, height, and weight before the start of the
    treatment and distributed over three groups. The weight loss observed
    during the carbohydrate-restricted diets was significantly greater
    than during the high-carbohydrate diet. After 28 days of treatment
    the weight loss recorded on the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.5 +/-
    0.7 kg, as compared to 11.4 +/- 0.7 kg (p less than 0.05) on the corn
    oil-containing diet and 12.5 +/- 0.9 kg (p less than 0.01) on the
    butter-fat-containing diet. The weight loss achieved was not
    dependent on the type of fat administered (saturated vs.
    polyunsaturated). When calculated cumulatively, sodium excretion
    during the first 7 days was significantly greater on the low-
    carbohydrate diet, whereas after 28 days the total amount of sodium
    excreted was highest on the high-carbohydrate diet. Potassium
    excretion during the low-carbohydrate diets was significantly greater
    for as long as 14 days, but at the end of the experimental period the
    observed differences no longer attained statistical significance. At
    no time did the intake and loss of fluid and the balances calculated
    therefrom show significant differences. From the findings obtained it
    appears that the alterations in the water and electrolyte balance
    observed during the low-carbohydrate diets are reversible phenomena
    and should thus not be regarded as causal agents of the different
    weight reduction."

    2: Rabast U, Schonborn J, Kasper H.
    Dietetic treatment of obesity with low and high-carbohydrate diets: comparative
    studies and clinical results.
    Int J Obes. 1979;3(3):201-11. Review.
    PMID: 395115 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=395115&dopt=Abstract

    Abstract:

    "In spite of numerous studies in the literature, it is still
    questionable as to whether the isocaloric exchange of carbohydrate
    and fat, in the form of a diet, leads to different degrees of weight
    loss. In comparative studies, obese patients given a low-carbohydrate
    (4.14 MJ [1000 kcal]) formula diet (diet Ia) lost 14.0 +/- 1.4 kg and
    those given an iso-energetic high-carbohydrate diet (diet Ib) 9.8 +/-
    0.9 kg. The degree of weight loss was significantly different. Daily
    weight losses were 362 g and 298 g respectively. Comparative studies
    of high and low-carbohydrate (7.83 MJ [1900 kcal]) formula diets
    (diets IIa and b) with a greater number of calories did not show any
    significant difference. However, there was a greater mean weight loss
    with the low-carbohydrate diet (351 g/day) compared with that under
    the high-carbohydrate diet (296 g/day). Evaluation of 117 patients
    treated with formula diets resulted in a weight loss of over 9 kg in
    102 obese patients and over 18 kg in 52 patients. The good response
    to the low-carbohydrate diet was partly responsible for the
    successful therapy."

    3: Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J.
    Comparative studies in obese subjects fed carbohydrate-restricted and high
    carbohydrate 1,000-calorie formula diets.
    Nutr Metab. 1978;22(5):269-77.
    PMID: 662209 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=662209&dopt=Abstract

    Abstract:

    "45 obese subjects were fed a high-carbohydrate, relatively low-fat,
    or a low-carbohydrate, relatively high-fat 1,000-calorie (4.14MJ)
    formula diet. The diet provided for an isoenergetic substitution of
    170 g of carbohydrates for 75 g of fat. Weight reduction up to day 30
    was significantly higher in the subjects on the carbohydrate-
    restricted diet. There were no significant differences between the
    water and electrolyte balances. The mean total weight reduction
    achieved on the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.8 +/- 4.5kg with a mean
    daily weight loss of 298 +/- 80g, while the corresponding values on
    the carbohydrate-restricted diet were 14 +/- 7.2 kg and 362 +/- 91
    g/day, respectively."

    4: Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J.
    [Treatment of obesity with low-carbohydrate diets (author's transl)]
    Med Klin. 1975 Apr 11;70(15):653-7. German.
    PMID: 1143166 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1143166&dopt=Abstract

    Abstract:

    "Therapeutic problems with low-carbohydrate diets in the weight
    reduction of the obese are summarized presenting results of the
    literature and results of the own group. The small number of patients
    and the short periods of treatment do account to the controverse
    results observed by other authors with low-carbohydrate diets. Also
    studies performed under ambulant conditions should be interpreted
    carefully. The therapeutic effect of the low-carbohydrate formula
    diet tested, satisfied even in comparison with a diet discribed in
    other studies. Concentrations of plasma triglycerides and cholesterol
    elevated in part turned to normal during therapy. There were no side
    effects of the gastro-intestinal tract. Hypocaloric diets with
    reduction of carbohydrates are discussed to have a good therapeutic
    effect for the following reasons: High value of satiety and increase
    of the metabolic rate."

    --
    Matti Narkia

  19. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:
    Jim Chinnis said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    > With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.
    >
    >

    Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?

    Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to put the
    science first?

    I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in this
    science newsgroup.

    Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad rather than find
    out from drinking a bottle of it.

    Again, it's a *science* newsgroup. No one can tell someone else what to
    believe. It's a place to discuss the science and the evidence.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

  20. Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:47:54 GMT in article
    <[email hidden]> Jim Chinnis

    Quoted message said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    Quoted message said:
    Jim Chinnis said:

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

    >Matti Narkia wrote:

    >> With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for my purposes.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?

    Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to put the
    science first?

    I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in this
    science newsgroup.

    Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad rather than find
    out from drinking a bottle of it.

    Again, it's a *science* newsgroup. No one can tell someone else what to
    believe. It's a place to discuss the science and the evidence.

    Unfortunately it starts looking like many of Chung's opinions are based on
    belief system rather than evidence. In these circumstances discussing evidence
    has turned out to be next to impossible.

    --
    Matti Narkia

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.