tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post2753096839306338467..comments2024-03-29T06:45:45.894+00:00Comments on Hyperlipid: A post not about Walter KempnerPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-12470761375325955032019-04-21T05:47:24.107+00:002019-04-21T05:47:24.107+00:00adam, I think you could say that for people with m...adam, I think you could say that for people with metabolic syndrome. But are you think about a "Hall" type study? Don't forget, Hall's approach tells us nothing, nothing at all, about spontaneous weight gain in humans. You might be interested in the db/db mice who ate a similar diet to the one you mention http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2016/02/high-fat-fed-mice-on-stearic-acid.html<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-1050387876014417072019-01-09T22:25:38.809+00:002019-01-09T22:25:38.809+00:00ECE - should have typed ECF.
Fats and sodium - co...ECE - should have typed ECF.<br /><br />Fats and sodium - could have been soap I suppose. Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-49699643865906863772019-01-09T17:06:16.174+00:002019-01-09T17:06:16.174+00:00Enjoy the lawn mowing. Hall is very, very clever.....Enjoy the lawn mowing. Hall is very, very clever.......<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-81940821915779287292019-01-09T15:31:39.474+00:002019-01-09T15:31:39.474+00:00Peter, Slicing and dicing the dietary ingredients ...Peter, Slicing and dicing the dietary ingredients it certainly looks like the macro ratios in the Hall paper you reference were very carefully chosen to put the baseline diet within easy reach of that magical 7% on the HC arm while the LC version ends up not breaking through the Lutz barrier of 72g/day in fact ~twice as high. <br /><br />Artful!<br /><br />Should note though that in the results section it says "only the RC diet resulted in a 22.3% (+/- 7 p0.001) decrease in daily insulin secretion" and "only the RC diet led to significant sustained adaptations of carbohydrate and fat metabolism"<br /><br />Aren't those the important results? And without even pushing the boundaries of serious LCHF! Who gives a rats' about the minor differences in weight loss? I want lower insulin please. And how hungry were those low fat eaters?<br /><br /><br />There is this older study by N. Hwalla et al which is similar but credible.<br /><br />https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/54a8/c995e3af3cfcf7d1650d699adce2c03391c5.pdf<br /><br />The Hall high fat (RC) has: <br />Total Cals 1918 with C29% F50% P21%<br />Hwalla's high fat (HM): <br />Total Cals 1835 C35% F45% P20%, slightly more carby.<br /><br />Hall's HC:<br />Total Cals 1918 C72% F7% P21% <br />Hwalla HC:<br />Total Cals 2003 C60% F20% and P20% , much more fatty!<br /><br />Interestingly if you add the calories from the lost fat mass back to both branches of Hwalla et al you get nearly the same total calories in each HC 2863, HF 2839 <br /><br />Both studies run for the same 4 week period. Hwalla et al selected IR subjects with high BMI and at the end of the trial "Fasting insulin levels, insulin to glucose ratio, and Homeostatic Model & Assessment Index decreased to normal ranges and were significantly lower in the HM group as compared with the HC group." and "Waist circumference measurements showed a significantly higher decrease on the HM than HC diet"<br /><br />There is a more recent Hall et al study in which the macro ratios actually were in Keto territory. <br />https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649 <br />In Table 1 there the (higher fat) diet has 5060g sodium versus 3060g in the baseline. Big diff. Most fats don't contain a lot of sodium so this must have been mixed in with the carbs??? This gets more interesting if you look up Hall et al's modelling paper <br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838532 <br /><br />It is complex but the explanatory detail for equation 3 says in part " I assumed that a 5000mg/day change in sodium intake would be balanced by a 1.7 litre change in ECE ...." (ECE is extra cellular fluid mass) and also "removing dietary carbohydrate doubles the sodium excretion rate compared to a low sodium diet"<br /><br />Something going on there do you think?<br /><br />Now please excuse me while I uncross my eyes and take my treadle powered lawn mower for a spin - I need the excercise.<br /><br />Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-75313928170845224892018-12-16T08:05:06.175+00:002018-12-16T08:05:06.175+00:00Chris, when the Hall study first came out I sort o...Chris, when the Hall study first came out I sort of looked at it, thought well, the diets are chosen a bit oddly, it was only 3 days at the peak of Atkins Flu and bully for Hall if he managed to get numbers to support his twisted view of life. Let's move on and get some real science done. that more or less seemed reasonable as a conclusion.<br /><br />I only got any more interest in the original study when he wrote to the BMJ bashing Ebbeling et al's work. Even that would be a matter of an "Oh well, what would you expect?" sort of a response. But the the core, number one "They wuz rong" point made by Hall is utterly incorrect. So we are now back in to the dichotomy of "Is he stupid?”, ie he really believes that Ebbeling should have use “Pre” as the anchor point or is he so biased that he knows his objection is utterly incorrect but he's going to make it anyway because enough people are likely to believe him anyway (Hall’s the one that showed LC doesn't work dontchano). This might be politely called bias.<br /><br />If the rest of the study starts to fall apart under scrutiny of the detailed methods (way beyond me) it would push me towards the latter opinion. Ultimately I worry that Hall is very, very bright and would never make a mistake unless he thought any net benefit was in his favour.<br /><br />But I may be wrong.<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-65676634543872245952018-12-15T18:58:33.169+00:002018-12-15T18:58:33.169+00:00Body fat loss on the isocaloric diet was calculate...Body fat loss on the isocaloric diet was calculated as a difference between net fat oxidation and fat consumption, raising the question of what replaced the lost body fat to maintain weight. The methods here seem designed to ignore lipogenesis from carbohydrate.<br /><br />The 30% CR diet results are particularly weird, though. It especially bothers me that the didn’t keep their methods/reporting entirely consistent with the isocaloric diets. Measured weight changes and protein balance and whatnot vs not measuring/reporting, and DXA vs metabolically calculated fat loss. And some of the results are a bit unexpected. E.g. carbohydrate burning increased in LC subjects over the course of the study after an initial decline, but with no change in protein balance in the same period. Might just be noisy data or whatever, though.<br /><br />But!<br /><br />Weight loss in LF was predicted to be about 250 g over six days, or about half what a 30% CR diet suggests (fig. 3F), but actual weight loss was about five times the predicted value, or around 1.25 kg. This difference might be understandable in an LC diet because of glycogen loss, but that’s really weird in HCLF diets unless they’re just sort of dehydrated overall. Doubly so since DXA is biased toward higher FFM and lower FM in dehydrated tissue, per "Accuracy of DXA in estimating body composition changes in elite athletes using a four compartment model as the reference method", Nutrition & Metabolism 2010, 7:22.<br /><br />Did they maybe accidentally give a bunch of pre-diabetic obese people mild polyuria with a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15974892385564973512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-44180034237801054222018-12-15T11:31:17.915+00:002018-12-15T11:31:17.915+00:00A little later: I re-read http://high-fat-nutriti...A little later: I re-read http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2015/10/protons-and-ultra-low-fat-once-more.html?m=1<br /><br />Truly masterful explaining. Perhaps don't try to achieve carbosis whilst using metformin?Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-37989347503449994032018-12-15T03:06:39.176+00:002018-12-15T03:06:39.176+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-8851641310719904632018-12-15T03:00:29.319+00:002018-12-15T03:00:29.319+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-36261035490475122152018-12-15T02:45:00.409+00:002018-12-15T02:45:00.409+00:00:)
I do know that if I tried that I wouldn't ...:)<br /><br />I do know that if I tried that I wouldn't survive very long. It is representative of my dark, dark years.<br /><br />Looking back at Insulin makes you hungry (7) you proposed "Satiety occurs when the brain senses that calories are no longer being accepted by the peripheral tissues using an ROS signal. Superoxide will be that signal." CNS insulin not involved etc.<br /><br />What's wrong with this rough scenario:<br /><br />Very healthy metabolonormative individuals with responsive beta cells (assuming that's enough fat to empower them).<br />Low fat of any kind intake = high insulin sensitivity in the hungry cells.<br />Big intake of mixed carbs including gluc and suc -> short delay then big insulin release -> insulin driven glucose input with no lipolysis ( no exogenous lipids to burn either) but still enough atp and proton increase from the big pulses of gluc and insulin to give a big superoxide signal -> insulin receptor shutdown -> as above, high level of unused circulating nutrients etc etc.<br /><br />I'm sure that there are many many devils in the details and it would have serious downstream consequences. Passthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-78786333290486211752018-12-14T15:41:50.193+00:002018-12-14T15:41:50.193+00:00Ignore the "both" in the above please!Ignore the "both" in the above please!Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-51838689440641579742018-12-14T15:40:57.595+00:002018-12-14T15:40:57.595+00:00Pass, I think I need that comment in my Christmas ...Pass, I think I need that comment in my Christmas crackers this year!<br /><br />Valerie, yep, the second three days out of six on a mild LC induction doesn't tell us much but I still want to know how they got what they got, is it possible to understand in any sort of detail?<br /><br />raphi. yes, looks that way. But it does pose questions as to how a nutrient bereft diet can be both satiating enough to give massive weight loss......... Dives me back to caloric access to adipose issue and hypoisulinaemia. It the moment I'm deep in to first pass hepatic insulin extraction.<br /><br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-26046130200077201962018-12-14T02:11:00.833+00:002018-12-14T02:11:00.833+00:00Peter, Peter, (Wags finger like an Italian Nonna)
...Peter, Peter, (Wags finger like an Italian Nonna)<br /><br />Anyway, you can throw away all your keto shakes now and mix this Carboshake(tm) instead:<br /><br />For 1000 food cals, quick back of a research paper calculation gives<br /><br />1 litre of ordinary CocaCola(tm)<br />2 small ie 50g eggs<br />45g gelatin<br /><br />Mix well, cook to kill bugs if the liquid doesn't do that. Who says you can't have your coke and heat it?<br /><br /><br /><br />PTCPassthecreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01214860448492630477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-89893213869830993472018-12-13T13:01:37.617+00:002018-12-13T13:01:37.617+00:00The Hall 2015 study lasted only 6 days. On such a ...The Hall 2015 study lasted only 6 days. On such a short horizon, I would expect the low-carb diet to lead to a lower fat loss simply because the body is busy burning glycogen at first. Only when glycogen is (relatively) depleted does the body move onto fat reserves.<br /><br />On the low-fat diet, the glycogen stores at not depleted, so the energy deficit would come straight from the fat stores.<br /><br />The real question (which they do not address in the paper) is which diet makes the body lose the most overall energy (glycogen + body fat).valeriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05234169408257579073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36840063.post-80635053306382493132018-12-13T12:43:43.749+00:002018-12-13T12:43:43.749+00:00so the only low-fat diet than 'works' must...so the only low-fat diet than 'works' must be so low-fat that it's nutrient deficient. and would lead to increased rates of suicide in most adherents due palate-boredom.<br /><br />greatraphihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08992252569979714724noreply@blogger.com