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 201–220 of 288
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Matti Narkia said:

    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:

    >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.

    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.

    What about long term?

    What about the vasculopathic effects of the hyperketonemia itself?

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

  2. Matti Narkia said:

    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.

    It remains my experience.

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

  3. Jim Chinnis 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.

    You can if you want to, Jim. I promise not to kick you out of SMC when/if you do
    :-)

    You might get a medal for saving a life too.

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

  4. Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:28:42 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

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


    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.

    What about long term?


    No one knows about long term effects _one way or other_, because no long term
    studies (> 1 year) have been conducted to my knowledge. Note that this means
    that you cannot claim any adverse long term effects either, there is no
    evidence about them. One should also notice that low carb is a very vague
    definition of a diet even when the percentage division of fats, proteins and
    carbs is given. IMHO for example type of additional fat could have effect in
    outcome. I'd prefer the extra fat to come mostly from monounsaturated fatty
    acids and, perhaps to somewhat lesser extent, from omega-3 fatty acids.

    In long term applications I would also expect the relative amount of carbs to
    increase after the ideal weight has been achieved, although it would always be
    less than in high carb diets.

    Quoted message said:

    What about the vasculopathic effects of the hyperketonemia itself?

    If you think that this is a major concern then please provide some evidence
    (not about acetone please).

    --
    Matti Narkia

  5. Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:49 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

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

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

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

    Thorsten Schier wrote:

    > 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.

    It remains my experience.

    Well, that just shows that you should trust studies more than your experience.
    Why do you think they make studies, when everyone could just as well rely on
    their experience?

    Come on, surely you can do better than that ;-).

    --
    Matti Narkia

  6. Matti Narkia said:

    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 wrote:

    > "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.

    Hardly.

    Quoted message said:

    In these circumstances discussing evidence
    has turned out to be next to impossible.

    The evidence regarding hyperketonemia being a physiologically undesirable condition
    has been presented in the past. Anyone who can Google knows this already. You
    continue to post equivocal information about effects of LC diets on lipid profile
    skirting the concerns about hyperketonemia being in itself directly harmful
    independent of its effects on lipid profile.

    It remains my experience that any favorable changes in lipid profile with LC dieting
    arises largely from weight loss.

    It remains my concern that hyperketonemia causes lipid peroxidation (ie generation of
    more oxidized LDL or oxLDL) resulting in accelerated atherosclerosis. The reason I
    am concerned is because I have seen severe diffuse coronary disease in very young
    people who have been LC dieting.

    Evidence?

    Here's a relevant study:

    http://tinyurl.com/r7tj

    There's more where this came from. Simply click on "Related Articles."

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

  7. Matti Narkia said:

    Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:49 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>

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

    Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:30:34 -0400 in article <[email hidden]>
    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >Thorsten Schier wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    It remains my experience.

    Well, that just shows that you should trust studies more than your experience.

    It doesn't really. Just the other way around.... YMMV.

    Quoted message said:


    Why do you think they make studies, when everyone could just as well rely on
    their experience?

    The studies are the starting points for gaining experience.

    Quoted message said:


    Come on, surely you can do better than that ;-).

    Of course, by being involved in clinical research, which I am.

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

  8. Paul E. Lehmann said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Matti Narkia said:

    Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:49 -0400 in article


    <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    >Matti Narkia wrote:
    >
    >> Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:30:34 -0400 in article


    <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> >profile.
    >> >
    >> Sharman et al. found that this is not true.
    >
    >It remains my experience.

    Well, that just shows that you should trust studies more than your


    experience.

    Quoted message said:


    It doesn't really. Just the other way around.... YMMV.

    Quoted message said:


    Why do you think they make studies, when everyone could just as well


    rely on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    their experience?

    The studies are the starting points for gaining experience.

    Quoted message said:


    Come on, surely you can do better than that ;-).

    Of course, by being involved in clinical research, which I am.

    Please cite papers which you have authored and had published in medical and
    or scientific journals.

    You can find them on my web site.

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

  9. Paul E. Lehmann said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Matti Narkia said:

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

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> >Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?
    >>>
    >>> Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to


    put the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>> science first?
    >>>
    >>> I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in


    this

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>> science newsgroup.
    >>
    >>Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad rather


    than find

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    belief system rather than evidence.

    Hardly.

    Quoted message said:

    In these circumstances discussing evidence
    has turned out to be next to impossible.

    The evidence regarding hyperketonemia being a physiologically undesirable


    condition

    Quoted message said:

    has been presented in the past. Anyone who can Google knows this already.


    You

    Quoted message said:

    continue to post equivocal information about effects of LC diets on lipid


    profile

    Quoted message said:

    skirting the concerns about hyperketonemia being in itself directly


    harmful

    Quoted message said:

    independent of its effects on lipid profile.

    It remains my experience that any favorable changes in lipid profile with


    LC dieting

    Quoted message said:

    arises largely from weight loss.

    It remains my concern that hyperketonemia causes lipid peroxidation (ie


    generation of

    Quoted message said:

    more oxidized LDL or oxLDL) resulting in accelerated atherosclerosis. The


    reason I

    Quoted message said:

    am concerned is because I have seen severe diffuse coronary disease in


    very young

    Quoted message said:

    people who have been LC dieting.

    Please state the condition of these very young people BEFORE and AFTER LC
    dieting.

    Before: No coronary disease.

    During: Severe diffuse coronary disease.

    Quoted message said:


    You fail to mention the prior condition.

    Wasn't necessary. Noone is born with severe diffuse coronary disease.

    Quoted message said:

    If you have data, document and
    present it to the scientific community.

    There are issues regarding patient confidentiality. Understandably, these young
    people do not want the stigma.

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

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

    Quoted message said:
    Matti Narkia said:

    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:

    >Jim Chinnis wrote:
    >
    >> "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.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?
    >>
    >> Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness to


    put the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> science first?
    >>
    >> I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well in


    this

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> science newsgroup.
    >
    >Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad rather


    than find

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    belief system rather than evidence.

    Hardly.

    Quoted message said:

    In these circumstances discussing evidence
    has turned out to be next to impossible.

    The evidence regarding hyperketonemia being a physiologically undesirable


    condition

    Quoted message said:

    has been presented in the past. Anyone who can Google knows this already.


    You

    Quoted message said:

    continue to post equivocal information about effects of LC diets on lipid


    profile

    Quoted message said:

    skirting the concerns about hyperketonemia being in itself directly


    harmful

    Quoted message said:

    independent of its effects on lipid profile.

    It remains my experience that any favorable changes in lipid profile with


    LC dieting

    Quoted message said:

    arises largely from weight loss.

    It remains my concern that hyperketonemia causes lipid peroxidation (ie


    generation of

    Quoted message said:

    more oxidized LDL or oxLDL) resulting in accelerated atherosclerosis. The


    reason I

    Quoted message said:

    am concerned is because I have seen severe diffuse coronary disease in


    very young

    Quoted message said:

    people who have been LC dieting.

    Please state the condition of these very young people BEFORE and AFTER LC
    dieting.
    You fail to mention the prior condition. If you have data, document and
    present it to the scientific community.

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

    Quoted message said:
    Matti Narkia said:

    Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:49 -0400 in article


    <[email hidden]>

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

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    > Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:30:34 -0400 in article


    <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >profile.
    > >
    > Sharman et al. found that this is not true.

    It remains my experience.

    Well, that just shows that you should trust studies more than your


    experience.

    Quoted message said:


    It doesn't really. Just the other way around.... YMMV.

    Quoted message said:


    Why do you think they make studies, when everyone could just as well


    rely on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    their experience?

    The studies are the starting points for gaining experience.

    Quoted message said:


    Come on, surely you can do better than that ;-).

    Of course, by being involved in clinical research, which I am.

    Please cite papers which you have authored and had published in medical and
    or scientific journals.

    Quoted message said:


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

  12. M_un Over New York City schrieb:

    Quoted message said:


    Thorsten Schier said:

    No "deep" ketosis was noted by

    Quoted message said:

    the medical community for the most part.

    For the most part? So there _were_ people who were in ketosis, even if
    they were a minority?

    Yes. There were a few who were attempting to starve themselves.

    How did you know? Did they tell you? Or is this an assumption on your
    part?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    As to obese to thin, many
    went from morbidly obese to obese and others, who were thin, got
    thinner but none were described as having disease or pathologies
    related to reduced food consumptions.

    Now, this sounded a bit different in your original post. If I may quote
    you:

    "There is not one fat POW in the group (anymore). "

    Correct.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm not a native speaker of English, as you will no doubt have noticed,
    so I might be wrong on this, but in my eyes your statement that there
    was not one fat POW in the group and your statement that many went from
    morbidly obese to obese, implying that many are still obese,

    Incorrect assumption on your part.

    What is an incorrect assumption on my part? How would you call a person
    who went from morbidly obese to obese? Obviously they are still obese
    otherwise you have written that they went from morbidly obese to
    overweight or to thin or whatever state they were in afterwards.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    When you have key members. and lots of them, of the Deck of Cards and
    their associates, the LAST thing you want to do is impair their
    physical health.

    Well, i must say that your account of the treatment of this prisoners
    didn't sound very humane.

    How about that.

    Well, giving prisoners food only once a day and restricting their water
    intake (in a desert climate) isn't my idea of humane treatment. But of
    course, YMMV.

    Thorsten

    --
    "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)

  13. Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:


    It remains my concern that hyperketonemia causes lipid peroxidation (ie generation of
    more oxidized LDL or oxLDL) resulting in accelerated atherosclerosis. The reason I
    am concerned is because I have seen severe diffuse coronary disease in very young
    people who have been LC dieting.

    Had they been previously significantly overweight?

    I agree that oxidization is a concern but another explanation was that
    the disease you see was a remaining consequence of their years of
    being overweight.

    It may be that the LC is more practically effective in more people
    than many other forms of dieting attempts. The question is whether
    increased danger from a short term LC (to get the weight off) might
    be outweighed by improvements from being able to be a better
    weight.

  14. Dr Chaos said:
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:


    It remains my concern that hyperketonemia causes lipid peroxidation (ie generation of
    more oxidized LDL or oxLDL) resulting in accelerated atherosclerosis. The reason I
    am concerned is because I have seen severe diffuse coronary disease in very young
    people who have been LC dieting.

    Had they been previously significantly overweight?

    Yes.

    Quoted message said:


    I agree that oxidization is a concern but another explanation was that
    the disease you see was a remaining consequence of their years of
    being overweight.

    Their being young means that it has not been that many years.

    Quoted message said:


    It may be that the LC is more practically effective in more people
    than many other forms of dieting attempts.

    Ime, LC has not been more effective in terms of permanent weight loss.

    Quoted message said:

    The question is whether
    increased danger from a short term LC (to get the weight off) might
    be outweighed by improvements from being able to be a better
    weight.

    Actually, the question is whether hyperketonemia is a harmful condition to be avoided.
    There are plenty of diets that do not cause hyperketonemia that are as if not more
    effective than "low-carbing."

    Ornish and Pritikin are two examples (as is http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp of
    course).

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

  15. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

    Quoted message said:


    Thorsten Schier said:

    As far as I know, there are no studies which really proof that
    carbohydrates cause obesity. But there are no studies either which
    proof
    otherwise.

    Actually there are studies that prove that weight loss is achievable
    with caloric reduction independent of the macronutrient composition of
    the food being ingested.

    Well, yes. Weight loss is also achievable with caloric restriction
    independent of the weight of the food.

    The question is, to what extend patients can follow such a diet in the
    long run and how healthy that is.

    Or when it comes to the causes of obesity: What causes people to overeat
    in the first place?

    Quoted message said:

    This is consistent with the observation that obesity in not rampant in
    parts of world where the majority of the world's population is eating
    proportionately higher amounts of carbs (ie Rice).

    Rice is better than potatoes and white bread because it has a lower
    glycemic index.

    And of course it is much better than sugar, because it contains no
    fructose and fructose is known to cause insulin resistance. As long as
    your not insulin resistant, you can probably get away with consuming
    considerable amounts of carbs.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    So scientists have to make up their mind on less solid evidence.

    Most scientists already *know* that carbohydrates do not cause
    obesity.

    They *think* that they know. That is not necessarily the same.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You
    believe that carbohydrates are innocent, other people believe
    otherwise.

    Go ahead and cite a reference where a credentialed scientist states
    the latter.

    "Carbohydrates with high glycemic indexes and high glycemic loads
    produce substantial increases in blood glucose and insulin levels after
    ingestion. Within a few hours after their consumption, blood sugar
    levels begin to decline rapidly due to an exaggerated increase in
    insulin secretion. A profound state of hunger is created. The continued
    intake of high-glycemic load meals is associated with an increased risk
    of chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and
    diabetes. "

    Low-glycemic-load diets: impact on obesity and chronic diseases.

    Bell SJ, Sears B.

    Sears Labs, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 500, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923,
    USA. [email hidden]

    (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12940416&dopt=Abstract)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    >
    > > > However
    > > > that may be, cutting out most carbs will cause a vast


    majority

    Quoted message said:

    > of obese
    > > > people to lose weight.
    > >
    > > Cutting out anything will cause weight loss.
    >
    > But if you are insulinresistent, and a vast majority of obese
    > persons
    > are, cutting out fat and protein leaves you hungry most of the


    time

    Quoted message said:


    Cutting out anything is going to cause some hunger.


    Hyperketonemia to

    Quoted message said:

    suppress hunger is not a good thing.

    I don't think so.

    Are you a physician?

    No. However, I have a university diploma in biology and so I think I am
    able to read and understand medical articles and abstracts.

    So far, no one has been able to show me evidence that ketosis induced by
    a low-carb diet might be harmful.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    >
    > because it
    > produces reactive hypoglycaemias.

    Hypoglycemia in insulin-resistant individuals come largely from
    overconsumption of simple sugars and not from cutting out either


    fat

    Quoted message said:

    or protein.

    You are aware of the fact that for example most kinds of bread raise
    the
    blood sugar as much and as quickly as does sucrose, if not more so?

    Not a fact to be aware of.

    Anyone who has taken a biochemistry course can explain this to you.

    Then go ahead.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Besides you have a high level of
    > insulin in your blood which tends to prevent wheight loss.
    >

    Insulin resistance leading to need for elevated levels of insulin

    Quoted message said:

    happen *after* weight gain and not before.

    Your opinion.

    My clinical experience plus what is currently known about Metabolic
    Syndrome (MetS). I have never seen a thin type 2 diabetic.

    Nor have I ever seen a thin person with MetS.

    Well, Eades and Eades (Protein Power) have.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It remains to be seen wether it is based on facts. Surely
    you can point to a study back up your thesis?

    Simply google "Metabolic Syndrome" and "Syndrome X" for literally
    hundreds of references.

    Should be easy for you then to cite just one study that supports your
    position.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    For another opinion:

    "It is concluded that hyperinsulinemia is a pathological driving
    force
    in producing both incipient obesity by overstimulating white adipose

    tissue and liver metabolic activity, and concomitantly producing
    incipient muscle insulin resistance."

    Hyperinsulinemia and its Impact on Obesity and Insulin Resistance
    Reference:
    Cusin, I., Rohner-Jeanrenaud, F., Terrettaz, J., et al.,
    "Hyperinsulinemia and its Impact on Obesity and Insulin Resistance,"

    International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders,
    16(Suppl 4), 1992, pages S1-S11.

    (http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-61705.html)

    Interesting article where the investigators implanted insulin pumps in
    otherwise healthy rates and overfed these animals to prevent
    hypoglycemia. These animals became overweight (because they were
    overfed).

    Imho, the authors are erroneous in their conclusion because they could
    not control for weight gain.

    According to the abstract the elevated insulin caused the larger food
    intake. They don't say anything about offering them more food than the
    control group or about force-feeding the rats. And they say that the
    rats _got_ hypoglycemia. So this does not sound as if they overfed them
    in order to prevent this.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    >
    > > Problem is that research
    > > studies indicate that such "dieting" has dismal long-term


    success

    Quoted message said:

    > rates..
    >
    > Could you point to such a study?

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/14/1792?etoc

    What has this to do with low-carb diets?

    It has to do with dieting in general. Reread the discussion.

    Well, small wonder they failed, if they used a low-fat diet. This proves
    nothing about the efficacy of low-carb dieting.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    They don't mention the kind of
    the commercial program. Under "Author Affiliations" however, they
    list
    Weight Watchers International, so that we can hazard a guess about
    the
    nature of this program. I believe Weight Watchers isn't really
    low-carb,
    rather the contrary.

    Quoted message said:


    > Of course people have to stick to this
    > way of life, if they return to the old eating habits, they will
    > again
    > gain wheight.
    >
    > > > In addition, it offers a whole host of other
    > > > health benefits like reduced bloodpressure
    > >
    > > That happens from losing weight.
    >
    > No.

    Sorry, yes.

    Eades and Eades (Protein Power) state otherwise. They claim to have
    successfully treated hypertension caused by fluid retension in
    normalweight patients with their low-carb diet.

    Hyperketonemia does evoke (unhealthy) diuresis. This would be an
    undesirable side effect. Failing kidneys likely will completely fail
    during this scenario of diuresis brought on by high protein intake.
    If you don't believe me, ask your friendly neighborhood nephrologist
    (kidney specialist) about this.

    It is my understanding that physicians frequently prescribe diuretics in
    order to lower blood pressure. And now you claim diuresis to be a bad
    thing. That there might be medical conditions that make diuresis
    dangerous is another question. Most of us don't have failing kidneys,
    however.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    > Hyperinsulinemia (elevated levels of insulin in the blood)


    causes

    Quoted message said:

    > fluid retension and thus high bloodpressure (there are other


    ways

    Quoted message said:

    > insulin promotes high bloodpressure, but this is probably most
    > important).

    If that were true, then medications lowering insulin levels (by
    increasing insulin sensitivity) would be known for blood pressure
    lowering properties. They aren't.

    Oh, they are, even if you may not be aware of it:

    Haven't seen it.

    Perhaps because if you prescribe such medications your primary objective
    is to achieve blood sugar control, not to reduce insulin levels. So in
    many cases the insulin levels will remain more or less the same, only
    that now they make a better job of reducing blood sugar.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:


    "In conclusion, metformin treatment increased insulin action,
    lowered
    blood pressure, improved the metabolic risk factor profile and
    tended to
    increase the fibrinolytic activity in these mildly hypertensive
    subjects. These results support the view that insulin resistance
    plays a
    role in hypertension, and may open up a new field for the
    alleviation of
    abnormalities associated with cardiovascular disease."

    J Intern Med. 1991 Feb;229(2):181-7.

    Treating insulin resistance in hypertension with metformin reduces
    both
    blood pressure and metabolic risk factors.

    Landin K, Tengborn L, Smith U.

    (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1900072&dopt=Abstract)

    "There was a significant decrease in blood lipids (trygliceride and
    cholesterol), an increase in HDL-cholesterol and a reduction in
    blood
    pressure in diabetics taking metformin"

    Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;44(2):107-12.

    Metformin for obese, insulin-treated diabetic patients: improvement
    in
    glycaemic control and reduction of metabolic risk factors.

    Giugliano D, Quatraro A, Consoli G, Minei A, Ceriello A, De Rosa N,
    D'Onofrio F.

    (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8453955&dopt=Abstract)

    Metformin does not directly decrease insulin resistance.

    The authors of at least the first of the above articles seem to believe
    otherwise: "Treating insulin resistance in hypertension with metformin
    ...."

    However that may be, perhaps you could just say what medications you had
    in mind. Please give a concrete example.

    Quoted message said:

    It blocks
    the metabolism of disaccarides (simple sugars like sucrose).

    Could you please elaborate on this and give a source? I didn't found
    anything like this in what I read about metformin. According to the
    articles I read, metformin reduces insulin resistance and suppresses
    hepatic glucose production (mainly that from gluconeogenesis).

    Besides, it is my understanding that disaccarides are digested into
    their parts (for example glucose and fructose) before entering the blood
    stream. So I'm a bit confused how metformin should influence their
    metabolism.

    Quoted message said:

    This
    does effect weight loss which probably accounts for much of the effect
    on blood pressure.

    In the first study, the body weight remained unchangend. And yet there
    was a reduction in blood pressure.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    > As lowcarb diets reduce the amount of insulin in the blood,
    > the bloodpressure goes down.

    With LC diets blood pressure does down with weightloss +/-


    diuresis

    Quoted message said:

    and vasodilatory effects of hyperketonemia.

    So ketosis does not seem to be that bad after all.

    Try drinking some acetone and get back with us on that.

    Next time you are going to tell us that potassium is poisonous because
    people die when they get a large amount of it injected.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    > This works even in people who are not
    > overweight to begin with.
    >

    See above.

    >
    > > > and lower triglcerides.
    > >
    > > This also happens largely from losing weight.
    >
    > Again, no. If you honestly believe this, I urge you to inform
    > yourself
    > about this, to the benefit of your patients.
    >
    > To get you started:
    >
    > "Triglycerides. The most dramatic and
    > consistent lipid response to a very-low-carbo-hydrate
    > diet is a moderate to large decrease in
    > fasting triglyceride levels and postprandial
    > triglyceride responses to a fat-rich meal,14
    > both independent risk factors for cardiovascu-lar disease.15,16
    >

    Actually triglycerides have been shown to be a CAD risk factor
    primarily in those with metabolic syndrome and not in other


    folks..

    Now, first you denied that low-carb diets reduce triglcerides
    independently of weightloss

    Still do.

    Quoted message said:

    and when you were shown otherwise

    Where?

    Below.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    you seem
    to deny the relevance of elevated triglycerides.

    Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.

    You make it sound as if elevated triglycerides were not a health concern
    for most people.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    With limited success, though, because the majority of overweight
    persons
    and almost all obese persons _have_ metabolic syndrome, so it is
    relevant for them. And a most dieters will be overweight or even
    obese.

    Quoted message said:

    > [...]
    > Paradoxically, a low-fat/high-carbohy-drate
    > diet exacerbates atherogenic dyslipi-demia
    > if the patient does not lose a significant
    > amount of weight or increase his or her level
    > of physical activity.26,27

    Therefore, when there is weight loss, triglycerides will be


    lowered

    Quoted message said:

    independent of whether the diet is LC or HC.

    > 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

    Quoted message said:

    weight loss, LC dieters rarely improve their lipid profile.

    The authors of the article I cited seem to think otherwise

    Where?

    I repeat:

    "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"

    (Emphasis added)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and what's
    more, they cite studies to back up their view. I also cited some
    studies
    to support this. Can you do the same for your view?

    Yes. However, you'll need to prove your point first.

    At least I presented evidence to support my view. You seem strangely
    reluctant to do the same for yours.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Volek and Westman, Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets


    revisited

    Quoted message said:

    > -
    > Cleveland clinic journal of Medicine, Volume 69 - Number 11 -
    > November
    > 2002, pp. 849-862
    >


    (http://atkins.com/img/assets/862/Volekand_Westman_Ketogenic_Review.pdf)

    I notice that you didn't bother to read the article because if you
    had,
    you would hardly have passed up the opportunity to tell us that the
    authors were in part financed by the Atkins Foundation.

    My preference is to discredit studies on the basis of either flaws or
    lack of scientific merit rather than harp on where the funding came
    from.

    Good.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    > "These results indicate that the effects of lowfat diets on
    > lipoprotein
    > metabolism are not limited to higher fasting plasma triglyceride


    and

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > lower HDL cholesterol concentrations, but also include a


    persistent

    Quoted message said:

    > elevation in RLPs. Given the atherogenic potential of these


    changes

    Quoted message said:

    > in
    > lipoprotein metabolism, it seems appropriate to question the


    wisdom

    Quoted message said:

    > of
    > recommending that all Americans should replace dietary saturated


    fat

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > with CHO."
    >

    The wiser recommendation is for folks to eat less across the


    board.

    Quoted message said:

    Except for food high in carbs of course.

    No exceptions.

    Not even for foods rich in transfats or sugar?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    >
    > Abbasi F. et al., High carbohydrate diets, triglyceride-rich
    > lipoproteins, and coronary heart disease risk. - Am J Cardiol.


    2000

    Quoted message said:

    > Jan
    > 1;85(1):45-8.
    >


    (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11078235&dopt=Abstract)

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > "Improvements in plasma lipids induced by the ad libitum


    consumption

    Quoted message said:

    > of
    > a high-CHO diet seem to be partly mediated by changes in body
    > weight,
    > whereas lipid changes induced by the high-MUFA diet seem to be
    > independent of changes in body weight."
    >
    > Archer WR. et al., Variations in body composition and plasma


    lipids

    Quoted message said:

    > in
    > response to a high-carbohydrate diet. - Obes Res. 2003
    > Aug;11(8):978-86.
    >
    >
    > > Without carbohydrates, there will be hyperketonemia. This is


    not

    Quoted message said:

    > a good
    > > thing physiologically.
    >
    > Now this is funny, because you are promoting a diet on which


    many

    Quoted message said:

    > dieters may be in ketosis as well, at least according to your
    > reasoning.
    >
    > Some time ago you stated in this group:
    >
    > "Irrespective of the insulin, if someone is catabolizing a large

    Quoted message said:

    > amount
    > of fat
    > (ie 40 lbs) in a short period of time (ie in less than 8


    months), it

    Quoted message said:

    > is
    > likely
    > they are inadvertantly ketogenic (not enough carbs for the


    amount of

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > catabolized
    > fat). It is the ketosis that is bad for the arteries, IMO."
    >
    >


    (http://groups.google.de/groups?q=g:thl1227282846d&dq=&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3E559E88.2CD6A290%40heartmdphd.com)

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > Now the person the discussion was all about lost this weight on
    > Ornish,
    > that is a very high carbohydrate diet.
    >
    > A person following your two-pound approach and eating a more
    > balanced
    > diet would get much less carbohydrates

    But enough to keep the Kreb cycle running. It only takes a few
    ounces. Folks really have to work at it to reduce the level of
    carbohydrates to cause hyperketonemia. It does not happen


    accidently

    Quoted message said:

    except in folks who are starving themselves. And, 2 pounds of food


    a

    Quoted message said:

    day is a long way from starvation.

    > and therefore likely be in
    > ketosis if he is losing moderate amounts of fat, at least


    according

    Quoted message said:

    > to
    > what you stated in the discussion I cited.
    >

    Depends on the rate of weight loss. The 2PD approach brings about

    Quoted message said:

    slow and steady weight loss cruising right into maintenance.

    >
    > Or think about all those poor POWs of Camp Cropper who,


    according to

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > Mu_nstruck, came from obese to thin in a matter of months, on a


    diet

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > allegedly not unlike your two-pound diet. They must have been in

    Quoted message said:

    > deep
    > ketosis.

    Losing so much weight as the POWs of Camp Cropper allegedly have in
    just
    a few months can hardly be called "slow and steady". So either what
    happend to these prisoners had nothing to do with the two-pound diet

    (which would raise the question, why you didn't notice this on your
    own)
    or else the weigth loss on the two-pound diet isn't all that slow
    and
    steady.

    I can only write from my experiences.

    Than it is strange that you didn't notice that what happened to those
    prisoners was so different from your experience. Or if you noticed, that
    you didn't tell us. If I had my own diet to promote, I would hate people
    to get a wrong idea about it.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    >
    > (<[email hidden]>😉
    >
    > > > If
    > > > you are interested in how this works, I'd recommend the book

    Quoted message said:

    > "Protein
    > > > Power" by Michael and Mary Eades to you.
    > > >
    > >
    > > I prefer peer-reviewed journal article to books like "Protein
    > Power."
    > >
    > > The latter sounds too much like "White Power."
    >
    > Do you really think you can discredit the work of the Eades'


    with

    Quoted message said:

    > this,
    > er, association of yours?
    >

    The title's already done it for me. Sorry.

    I notice that you take every possible excuse to close both eyes when
    it
    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?

    I think this is a bit of a blind spot for you. For some reason you seem
    to choose to ignore all evidence in favor of low-carb diets, of which
    there is plenty. Some of it was presented to you in this thread.

    Than this is a matter of personal experience. I lost about 25 kg (in
    somewhat more than half a year) on a low-carb diet. When I started to go
    off the diet, at least partly (mostly by eating too much chocolate) I
    regained 5 kg. Now that I'm back on the diet I already have lost again 4
    of the 5 regained kg. My blood pressure has fallen considerably, as well
    as my triglycerides. Cholesterol has remained the same. I'm less tired
    than I used to be. And this diet is a way you can lose weight and yet
    don't have to be hungry all the time.

    I also read in alt.support.diet.low-carb, so I know that I'm not the
    only one who has lost weight and impoved health on this diet. It is
    particulary interesting how many diabetics have managed to control their
    blood sugar with low-carb diets. You will note that the corresponding
    low-fat group has almost no traffic. Don't seem to be many successful
    dieters there.

    Thorsten

    --
    "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)

  16. "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:

    Jim Chinnis wrote:

    > "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.

    You can if you want to, Jim. I promise not to kick you out of SMC when/if you do
    :-)

    You might get a medal for saving a life too.

    Is there a support newsgroup for heart disease? Maybe telling people what to
    believe would be appropriate there.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

  17. MD/PhD said:
    Quoted message said:
    MD/PhD 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?

    You obviously don't get it. See the above.

    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.

    You are still twisting my words. You obviously don't get it. See the
    above.

    Quoted message said:
    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.

    You obviously don't get it. See the above.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

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

    Doesn't it?

    Yes, despite your distortions.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

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

    Hardly.

    Show me where MY words (if you had a handle on the TYPE) are in YOUR
    reply (all-you-can-eat of any TYPE of food makes rapid weight regain
    possible). If it is not in there, you have distorted my words, and my
    meaning. Point out EXACTLY where my words are in YOUR statement. Can
    you do that or not?

    Quoted message said:
    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.

    No I did not. You seem to be unable to understand the simplest of
    things. You obviously don't get it. See the above.

    Quoted message said:


    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.

    I do not weigh my food. What gave you that crazy idea? I was just
    pointing out that if I DID weigh my food, [plug your ears here<g>] I
    would be eating MORE than 2 pounds a day, AND NOT GAINING WEIGHT FOR
    AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. I DO realize you can never admit that,
    though.

    Quoted message said:

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

    I do have a handle on the TYPE of food I eat. That's what I said in
    the first place. I'm glad you finally agree with what I said.

    Quoted message said:
    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.

    Are you suggesting that more than 2 pounds of food, even with NO MORE
    than 900 cal/day TOTAL, is going to make me fat? [A simple yes or no
    would be better than the usual "Twist." <g>]

    Quoted message said:
    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.

    Not if it's 900 cal/day. You can't be that dense, can you? Or - maybe
    you can. Actually, it seems much more likely that you simply cannot
    acknowledge anything that contradicts your 2 pound diet. Do you know
    how silly you are beginning to look?

    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.

    OK. I guess we have to keep it simple for you.

    If I STUFF myself, 3 times a day, with MORE than 2 pounds of food a
    day, and *****with no more than 900 cal/day TOTAL calories***, tell me
    the mechanism by which I would gain weight on NO MORE than 900
    cal/day.

    This will be fun watching you squirm out of this one. <g> I await your
    "Twist."

    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.

    You obviously don't get it. See the above. Actually, this "endless
    twisting" gets boring after a while. <g> You are SO predictable. We
    KNOW you won't admit that someone will not get fat on 900 cal/day. <g>

    Quoted message said:
    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

    Actually I did do that earlier today when I went in for a visit. The
    mild version is that he didn't think much of it. We have an excellent
    relationship, and he will tell me what he really thinks. <g> [He reads
    the newsgroup.]

    He's a super doc. Three board certified specialties, exceedingly
    talented, does research, and just happens to be a locally recognized
    authority on nutrition, which is why I mentioned it. We discuss
    nutrition quite often. He's the one other docs go to for nutrition
    information - he REALLY knows his stuff. In deference to him, and you,
    I won't say what he actually thinks of your diet. <g>

    It doesn't look like you got a good review, at least from one
    nutrition authority.

    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.

    You gotta be kidding. You're the slipperiest eel I've seen in a while.
    <g>

    Quoted message said:
    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.

    Glad you agree with doing a disservice, even if not a guise.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Too bad. I was hoping for something better.

    Here is my better:

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

    Sounds like a good pitch, but it does not even begin to describe your
    evasiveness, stubbornness, biases, misinformation, and disservice to
    your patients. Not only that, there is no audio of Chubby Checker:
    "Let's do the Twist." <g> It doesn't describe the real you accurately.

    Seeing how you operate here, I wouldn't want to get similarly twisted
    advice as one of your patients.

    Quoted message said:

    God's humble servant,

    Perhaps you could serve your patients first. My sympathies go out to
    them.

    vic

  18. On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:53:29 GMT, Matti Narkia <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Matti Narkia said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    No one knows about long term effects _one way or other_, because no long term
    studies (> 1 year) have been conducted to my knowledge. Note that this means
    that you cannot claim any adverse long term effects either, there is no
    evidence about them.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What about the vasculopathic effects of the hyperketonemia itself?

    If you think that this is a major concern then please provide some evidence
    (not about acetone please).

    Matti - I appreciate your reasoned, well documented information. It
    adds a lot to the newsgroup. Thank you. It is really too bad that
    other "experts" do not follow your good example.

    You're pretty good at countering "The Twist" too. <g> Your
    clarifications are quite helpful.

    vic

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

    Quoted message said:
    Paul E. Lehmann said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:47:54 GMT in article
    > <[email hidden]> Jim Chinnis
    > <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in


    part:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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


    part:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >>>
    > >>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> >> With all due respect, I'm afraid that you won't qualify for


    my

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    purposes.

    Quoted message said:

    > >>> >>
    > >>> >>
    > >>> >
    > >>> >Then why are you here hanging out in a cardiology newsgroup?
    > >>>
    > >>> Providing us with great, detailed information and a willingness


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    put the

    Quoted message said:

    > >>> science first?
    > >>>
    > >>> I greatly appreciate Matti Narkia's contributions. They fit well


    in

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    this

    Quoted message said:

    > >>> science newsgroup.
    > >>
    > >>Then you'd better advise Matti to believe that ketones are bad


    rather

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    than find

    Quoted message said:

    > >>out from drinking a bottle of it.
    > >
    > >Again, it's a *science* newsgroup. No one can tell someone else


    what to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >believe. It's a place to discuss the science and the evidence.
    >
    > Unfortunately it starts looking like many of Chung's opinions are


    based

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    on

    Quoted message said:

    > belief system rather than evidence.

    Hardly.

    > In these circumstances discussing evidence
    > has turned out to be next to impossible.
    >

    The evidence regarding hyperketonemia being a physiologically


    undesirable

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    condition

    Quoted message said:

    has been presented in the past. Anyone who can Google knows this


    already.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You

    Quoted message said:

    continue to post equivocal information about effects of LC diets on


    lipid

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    profile

    Quoted message said:

    skirting the concerns about hyperketonemia being in itself directly


    harmful

    Quoted message said:

    independent of its effects on lipid profile.

    It remains my experience that any favorable changes in lipid profile


    with

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    LC dieting

    Quoted message said:

    arises largely from weight loss.

    It remains my concern that hyperketonemia causes lipid peroxidation


    (ie

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    generation of

    Quoted message said:

    more oxidized LDL or oxLDL) resulting in accelerated atherosclerosis.


    The

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    reason I

    Quoted message said:

    am concerned is because I have seen severe diffuse coronary disease in


    very young

    Quoted message said:

    people who have been LC dieting.

    Please state the condition of these very young people BEFORE and AFTER


    LC

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    dieting.

    Before: No coronary disease.

    During: Severe diffuse coronary disease.

    Document and submit to peer review.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:


    You fail to mention the prior condition.

    Wasn't necessary. Noone is born with severe diffuse coronary disease.

    Quoted message said:

    If you have data, document and
    present it to the scientific community.

    There are issues regarding patient confidentiality. Understandably, these


    young

    Quoted message said:

    people do not want the stigma.

    Andy, you know damn well that you could publish results of your "Research"
    without mentioning names. You are guilty of failing to disclose data that
    you claim backs your opinions. You are also denying data to other
    researchers. Your lack of scientific investigation and reasoning is
    becoming more apparent every day.

    Quoted message said:


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

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

    Quoted message said:
    Paul E. Lehmann said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    Matti Narkia wrote:

    > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:49 -0400 in article


    <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    > >Matti Narkia wrote:
    > >
    > >> Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:30:34 -0400 in article


    <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

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


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >>
    > >> >Thorsten Schier wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> 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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    weight loss, LC dieters rarely improve their lipid

    Quoted message said:

    > >> >profile.
    > >> >
    > >> Sharman et al. found that this is not true.
    > >
    > >It remains my experience.
    >
    > Well, that just shows that you should trust studies more than your


    experience.

    Quoted message said:


    It doesn't really. Just the other way around.... YMMV.

    >
    > Why do you think they make studies, when everyone could just as well


    rely on

    Quoted message said:

    > their experience?
    >

    The studies are the starting points for gaining experience.

    >
    > Come on, surely you can do better than that ;-).

    Of course, by being involved in clinical research, which I am.

    Please cite papers which you have authored and had published in medical


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    or scientific journals.

    You can find them on my web site.

    If they are there, they are NOT apparent. Please provide more detailed
    information on where to look on your web site. Please also indicate the
    papers YOU authored which specifically refer to the topic in this thread.

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.