tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post9125554398570613847..comments2024-03-27T22:57:00.742+00:00Comments on Hyperlipid: An exchange of half bricksPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-83885364998568996472019-01-15T02:31:46.853+00:002019-01-15T02:31:46.853+00:00In the Ebbeling study, they also measure REE in a ...In the Ebbeling study, they also measure REE in a metabolic chamber. The REE was not different between the 3 diets.<br /><br />One interpretation is that people on the low-carb diet moved more (unintentionally). Their REE did not increase but their TEE did. OK. Maybe.<br /><br />Another interpretation is that the doubly labeled water measure of TEE is not reliable. I asked Google about it. I found this.<br /><br />https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00192.2013<br /><br />"...there was a consistent overestimation of rCO2 by the DLW [doubly labeled water] technique in the HF [high-fat]-fed animals..."<br /><br />Moreover, the raw data is available for the Ebbeling study. Looking at participant's data one at a time (not averaged), it appears that nearly half the participants have implausible TEE. For instance, quite a few of them have higher TEE right after weight loss (on the low-calorie diet) than at the start of the study.<br /><br />The authors even acknowledge that they removed some data points from their analysis because they judged them implausible. I thought doubly labeled water would give super reliable measurements of TEE. That is obviously not the case here.<br /><br />In my view, the most plausible explanation is that doubly labeled water is not all it's cracked up to be.valeriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05234169408257579073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-8206849892739699612019-01-14T20:19:06.861+00:002019-01-14T20:19:06.861+00:00Reading all the BMJ responses, it looks like the E...Reading all the BMJ responses, it looks like the Ebbeling study might be the inverse of the Aberdeen study. <br />The authors don't deny that their low carbers might be moving more. They don't insist that the TEE salvation is all about uncoupling or other metabolic advantage, because they didn't control movement. <br />If there is in fact no MAD, then low carb either kills your appetite, or it gives you ants in your pants. Helped, I would say, by a reduction in joint pain after grain avoidance.<br />Either way it works well enough to tie Hall up in interesting knots of his own design.Puddleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00953398103675945541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-13661737944878047872018-12-12T12:27:30.600+00:002018-12-12T12:27:30.600+00:00Ketone bodies - seems that the medium is the messa...Ketone bodies - seems that the medium is the message: https://www.cell.com/trends/endocrinology-metabolism/fulltext/S1043-2760(13)00156-2Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-75479995660531933012018-12-10T20:04:28.514+00:002018-12-10T20:04:28.514+00:00donny,
The loss of voices is really nice to hear ...donny,<br /><br />The loss of voices is really nice to hear about. You do know there is a similar case report, of remission of very severe schizophrenic voices? The lady only went in to ketosis for weight control, not schizophrenia management. She'd had severe voices for over 60 years.There are also reports from Abraham Hoffer of tidying up a mixed macro diet and adding B3? Took many months to take effect whereas ketosis is less than a week...<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-49492122580295402452018-12-10T15:37:45.050+00:002018-12-10T15:37:45.050+00:00Just eating low carb, not worrying about fat vs. p...Just eating low carb, not worrying about fat vs. protein brought me down to 170 from 190. For my height, that brings me from barely obese to barely overweight by bmi. I know bmi can be misleading, but for me, the mirror and tape measure tell me that obese and overweight were accurate in my case. I could get leaner by eating less, which I usually did by upping protein, lowering fat. Which worked, I got leaner, but the leaner I got, the more prone to binges I got. A pound of cheese, or 700 gram bag of nuts. Last time I got down to 154 this way, I was having binge problems. We were storing some non-food items for some neighbours who were snowbirding to Indonesia, I ended up bingeing on some of that. Maple syrup, honey. Keto was just getting off, I got curious about what it would be like to eat the 4:1 diet, so I tried that. The tendency to binge went away. I didn't stay that high fat, but it got me more wary of protein, since then my "easy maintenance" weight has gone down about ten pounds to 160, but I can keep it closer to 150 on a tighter ratio, without the issues with binges and low energy. Maybe coincidentally, for 25 years or so I'd been hearing voices. It started as a constant thing, typical schizophrenic sort of stuff, but was down mostly to the illusion that people were yelling when I operated loud machinery, anyways, I noticed operating a gas wood splitter that always set me off that that was gone when I went to 4:1, it never came back.donnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107555662488785352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-86740828454463011572018-12-09T05:36:55.905+00:002018-12-09T05:36:55.905+00:00cave, yes, they do tend to, especially when fed on...cave, yes, they do tend to, especially when fed on CIAB. The one's we've low-ish carbed have tended to go with skin problems rather than tumours. They've been fed human level protein intake so never even looked at ketosis. None of them have had amazingly long lifespans. But they are very cute!<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-37017391152718505412018-12-08T16:19:39.575+00:002018-12-08T16:19:39.575+00:00My son had a pair of rats when he was younger. The...My son had a pair of rats when he was younger. They were charming and interactive pets. They were also prolific tumor factories, which finally did them in, despite several successful surgeries. Does that happen to all of them?cavenewthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08461541719892430585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-68421024249531882632018-12-08T06:07:56.554+00:002018-12-08T06:07:56.554+00:00Love it pass, xkcd is one of my frequently used bo...Love it pass, xkcd is one of my frequently used bookmarks. Dilbert is top and Jesus and Mo second, xkcd third. Hadn't seen that one!<br /><br />Paul, great to hear it. Our two ratties have turned out to be stars too. Really lucky to get this pair, both very confident and outgoing. Though I have to say my wife has been feeding them cheese through the cage bars so I got nipped in a flurry of overexcitement when I went to open the cage door last night. Humph!<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-24314764628741108582018-12-08T01:21:01.292+00:002018-12-08T01:21:01.292+00:00Peter, as always, thanks for your clarity. I conf...Peter, as always, thanks for your clarity. I confess I struggle to keep up with these analyses, since neither nutrition nor statistics have ever been my fields (French and music, instead), but I do appreciate the digs against Keven Hall, who seems a right . . . (fill in the blank with your favorite insult).<br /><br />Btw, the new rats are charming. Hope yours are doing well, too.Paul Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18391711377432451789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-53486168249533252102018-12-08T00:03:49.612+00:002018-12-08T00:03:49.612+00:00https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/extrapolating.pnghttps://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/extrapolating.pngPassthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-20638231401133054912018-12-07T16:52:11.575+00:002018-12-07T16:52:11.575+00:00donny, crossed postings. I have many ideas which d...donny, crossed postings. I have many ideas which drive me to LC eating... And modest protein restriction. Mostly related to the insulin/GH/IGF-1 axis.<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-67559434276563468162018-12-07T16:49:57.861+00:002018-12-07T16:49:57.861+00:00cave, I should chill a little. I do see what you m...cave, I should chill a little. I do see what you mean!<br /><br />Hi First, in the original post I had a rambling aside about how you sometimes submit a paper and the scrutineers want you to have done a different study to the one you have done. I see exactly what you are saying…<br /><br />I’ve had some info via Tucker as to how the initial protocol started off as using the design Hall considers to be correct and I consider completely unacceptable. All I can say is kudos for realising there was a mistake and for correcting it before it was too late.<br /><br />Re 100kcal vs 270kcal. Clearly 270kcal is the correct figure and 100kcal is incorrect. So no need to worry about how clinically significant a 100kcal improvement is when the data show the actual improvement is 270kcal….<br /><br />What is clear is that 30% calorie reduction for six days with forced exercise and very careful food source choices can prop up the (extreme) low fat protocol (which sounds like Denise Minger's term "carbosis" btw). That was its purpose, I suspect.<br /><br />Looking at the remedial effect of modest LC eating on the the damage done by two months of conventional dieting is, I agree, a totally non-related study. One of significantly greater impact to real life than six days in a metabolic chamber.<br /><br />Point scoring vs practical application.<br /><br />Hi donny, personally I think both might matter.<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-61004064833221872302018-12-07T16:26:17.049+00:002018-12-07T16:26:17.049+00:00If I was going to do the Mediterranean diet for ma...If I was going to do the Mediterranean diet for maintenance, using Hall's start points, would I be better off going low carb, or high carb? Looks like there might be a statistically significant advantage to the switch to low carb, but not to low fat. Choosing what to compare things to is fun.<br /><br />Last time I posted multiple times in a row here, I had a manic episode. So I'll stop for now.donnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107555662488785352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-48992603587118865252018-12-07T15:41:01.130+00:002018-12-07T15:41:01.130+00:00The Mediterranean dieters don't seem to have g...The Mediterranean dieters don't seem to have gotten the memo about dietary "quality" mattering more than macronutrient ratios.donnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107555662488785352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-14630618811040769992018-12-06T21:17:35.070+00:002018-12-06T21:17:35.070+00:00Ebbeling Study Question:
-How does weight maintain...Ebbeling Study Question:<br />-How does weight maintainence affect EE?<br />Hall Study Question:<br />-How does weight loss and maintainence affect EE?<br /><br />These are 2 DIFFERENT research questions. It appears Hall is demanding that HIS research question is answered because he does not like the results. Either question is valid to study, but the Ebbeling question is more rigorous because:<br /><br />-Weight loss and maintainance have very different effects on EE and these phases must be separated. <br />-The baseline EE test should be performed close to randomization (as in Ebbeling's study question, not much earlier as in Hall's)<br />-Previous studies have already been conducted combining these phases (eg Hall). Why repeat them ad naseum?<br />-Even if there is only a small benefit in EE during weight loss, it's important to know what the effect is on the maintenance phase, particularly since this phase should last far longer than the weight loss phase and there is more opportunity for higher EE to provide a benefit over time (we were limited to 5 months of maintenance). <br /><br />The EE outcome is a mean, which means that some people may benefit from LC more than others when we consider the range and standard deviation. Hall claims a small EE of 100 kcals/day is not significant, but some are benefiting more and we need to identify these people.<br /><br />It's especially important mechanistically that effect modification by insulin resistance was discovered by Ebbeling. This suggests that the weight maintainence phase may need to be targeted in people with IR who lose weight by any means (possibly even including those with IR after bariatric weight loss). Only Ebbeling's work provides this important lead about IR.<br /><br />RCTs routinely make changes to their protocols without any objection, but now that these results are in conflict with the CICO hypothesis, there are implications and allegations of research fraud with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. <br /><br />Hall's "reanalysis" using his study question ironically SUPPORTS Ebbeling's results. How can the Ebbeling data be flawed if the results were similar for the study question demanded by Hall? The real question is whether Hall has the data to repeat the Ebbeling analysis. So far, Hall has NOT responded to my question about this.<br /><br />I find it rather stunning that a CICO proponent has actually argued that an increase in EE due to LC would be detrimental to longevity based on this study. This is a good example of how things have devolved in the wake of Ebbeling- desparation has ensued.<br /><br />The bottom line is that Hall's "reanalysis" is an inappropriate demand for his study question to be answered by Ebbeling. Hall's results do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to diminish the impact of Ebbeling's results.<br /><br />By First Name<br />Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08965844298113390185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-4391207131234879032018-12-05T23:48:24.394+00:002018-12-05T23:48:24.394+00:00I just thought it was amusing that Hall's rebu...I just thought it was amusing that Hall's rebuttal was completely contradicted by his own title.cavenewthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08461541719892430585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-29886857150294111632018-12-05T23:12:21.108+00:002018-12-05T23:12:21.108+00:00Peter, obviously, the correct procedure is to take...Peter, obviously, the correct procedure is to take the start to end change values and extrapolate them back to the pre point by adding them to the inital values. Looks slightly better, the whole graph then relates to carb intake and p values be darned.<br /><br />:-)))Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-61580896546745519542018-12-05T11:37:34.820+00:002018-12-05T11:37:34.820+00:00raphi, I doubt I'd have blogged the paper if H...raphi, I doubt I'd have blogged the paper if Hall's rebuttal hadn't been so grossly misleading, and wrong of course. The other idea which has occurred to me since is that it possibly does relate to the Aberdeen study. The reason anyone might refuse to eat 2000kcal is that they do have excess calories available, as in hypoinsulinaemia. It also starts to germinate thoughts about what is meant by weight loss, from a metabolic flux point of view, ie access to fat calories. And there is that paper Mike Eades tweeted where some folks are looking at metabolic flux the Ag neurones in the VMH as an appetite regulator. They looked at glucose but you can't blame them too much for that. But the VMH is also full of CD36 receptors... Of course I doubt they were thinking about superoxide, but they should be!<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-21674615237035208902018-12-05T10:31:20.097+00:002018-12-05T10:31:20.097+00:00i haven't yet read the study. although im not ...i haven't yet read the study. although im not sure what's left to discover after pointing out the "Pre", "Start" and "End shennanigansraphihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08992252569979714724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-25395975716250877322018-12-05T08:06:56.250+00:002018-12-05T08:06:56.250+00:00valerie, Yes, I think it's random. There will ...valerie, Yes, I think it's random. There will be lots of reasons but none which we could pull out a marker and measure to predict... Much as some people get in to ketosis far more easily than others etc<br /><br />cave, absolutely. The paper is looking at correcting the damage done, it's not comparing LC or HC against a random population. Hall has a very blotted copy-book. Last of the dinosaurs! Hall has never hidden the depths of his bias. At least he is honest in that detail, but he still does damage. I attended a rawfeeding conference recently where Alex German was an invited non-rawfeeding contributor. Straight "starve and force exercise, count every calorie" sort of chap from Liverpool Uni vet school. Citing Hall's metabolic chamber study to show that all calories are equal...<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-87692871455550933262018-12-05T04:02:26.204+00:002018-12-05T04:02:26.204+00:00Do you have any idea why there is such a great var...Do you have any idea why there is such a great variation in the decrease in TEE between the Pre and Start points between the three groups?<br /><br />I would expect semi-starvation to have a more consistent effect on TEE.<br /><br />Or maybe this is just a chance effect, and it illustrates the pitfalls or randomization without stratification?valeriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05234169408257579073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-47352853133728805152018-12-05T00:55:37.698+00:002018-12-05T00:55:37.698+00:00Hall should not have included the "Pre" ...Hall should not have included the "Pre" run-in diet period—it's right there in the very title of his paper: "No Significant Effect of Dietary Carbohydrate versus Fat on the Reduction in Total Energy Expenditure DURING MAINTENANCE OF LOST WEIGHT."cavenewthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08461541719892430585noreply@blogger.com