410 replies to this topic

[Moonbeam]

Thank you for the info, I will decrease my whole grain intake starting today. I'll stick with oatmeal (to keep my cholesterol stable) and brown rice (I don't think I can ever give this one up) though. The reason I was eating so many whole grains was because the medical community considered them healthy and since I could not live off beans, fruits and vegetables alone I decided to add them. I don't like meat aside from chicken, fish and sea food though it's not good to eat those last two everyday.

Yea, it's hard to know what to eat, and then hard to do it once you figure out what you think is best. So much information, misinformation, opinions, politics, etc. involved. You might like to read about paleolithic diets. (There go your beans along with the grain, unfortunately, if you agree with that school of thought.)

If you are not trying to stay in ketosis, is a little bit of whole grain (and beans), really going to do much damage to you? I don't know, I would think not. Most of the problems are due to the the excess that people eat of those things (and everything).

You probably won't have to worry about your cholesterol, unless you have a genetic hyperlipidemia.

[Sozin]

I've been on the Ketogenic diet for 40 days and have been in moderate-heavy ketosis for 30 days. On an average day I eat about a pound of salmon drenched in olive oil and spices, 1/2 pounds of chicken with salsa and blue cheese, and a few handfulls of unsalted peanuts. Occasionally I'll fill up on ground beef or ground buffalo when I have some. I also eat about a dozen eggs per week. I drink water, tea and black coffee. About a month before this diet I started supplementing a lot also. I'm 19 with really annoying arthritis in my knees and hips. Walking to class sucked. While I can't attribute all of my success to the diet because I got a cortizone shot in my knee which helped a lot, I can say in complete honesty that I haven't felt better since I was a kid. Other results include the following: Skin cleared up within 5 days (Large improvement -- but not perfect), very level headedness (brain feels "soft"), normal sleep cycle, no afternoon fatigue (If I get my 8 hours), decreased apitite, decreased stress, blood pressure went from 120/75 to 106/60, my heart feels much stronger, and Obama got elected -- Definitely a plus to this diet. Two months ago I wouldn't have dreamed of getting into martial arts because of pain, now I've decided to just start. I really can't think of anything negative to say -- either it's helped something a lot or a little or not at all -- it hasn't made anything worse. I don't think I'll ever go back to eating carbs again. It's been a little tough staying off of carbs, but as time goes by my desire for them has lessened. I suggest that everyone tries it for a solid month -- then you'll have a much better view about what is healthy and what is not.

[edward]

Great story Sozin, I am glad you are getting good results so far. You might want to be careful about eating a pound of salmon a day as most fish will contain heavy metals and toxins (sad result of our polluted oceans). I wouldn't eat actual fish more than once or twice a week. Rather I would get some high quality pharmaceutical grade fish oil and chug that each day (as much as your wallet can handle ). You might also try GLA (from borage oil) as it helps with inflammation.

[JLL]

Or at least eat some selenium with the fish to bind the mercury.

[Sozin]

Great story Sozin, I am glad you are getting good results so far. You might want to be careful about eating a pound of salmon a day as most fish will contain heavy metals and toxins (sad result of our polluted oceans). I wouldn't eat actual fish more than once or twice a week. Rather I would get some high quality pharmaceutical grade fish oil and chug that each day (as much as your wallet can handle ). You might also try GLA (from borage oil) as it helps with inflammation.

I'm aware of the presence of mercury in salmon, but I figured it was not a big deal according to these FDA numbers:
http://www.cfsan.fda...f/sea-mehg.html

Here it claims that frozen salmon has an average mercury concentration of .014ppm whereas the 'classic' albacore tuna serving has .357ppm -- about 25 times as much. I've heard that you can eat the tuna once a week, so therefore, as my genius math comes into play, you can eat 25 servings of salmon and still be good to go. Plus I've read that the benefits of salmon far outweigh any risks. I think it's really the healthiest thing you can eat - it's got everything a ketogenic dieter can dream of. I also mix it up with some Tilapia, shrimp or light tuna - but in general I just plain believe that humans were meant to eat fish -- and a lot of it. Salmon seems to be the best pick.

[edward]

Interesting, I'd have to do more research on the exact heavy metals levels in each fish. I was under the impression that the bigger the fish and the fattier the fish the worse over all heavy metal and toxin load (big fish eat small fish and toxins are stored in the fat). I agree that seafood is great and its too bad we have ruined our oceans. I will still stick to eating it no more than once a week or less as heavy metals and other toxins are not something easily gotten rid of

[Brainbox]

Maybe farm-grown salmon do have less heavy metal exposure as compared to sorts that had a natural habitat?

EDIT

Oops...

Farmed vs. Wild Salmon
There is somewhat of a controversy about eating wild vs. farmed salmon. The issues fall into three main categories:

Contamination: Most of the salmon available for human consumption today is farmed, but several independent studies have found concentrations of PCBs and other contaminants at levels of up to 10 times higher in farmed salmon. In Europe, there have even been situations where farmed fished tested at high levels of heavy metals such as lead and cadmium. These contaminants seem to be getting to the fish through the feed, which become concentrated in the oil of the salmon.

Farmed salmon in the U.S. are regulated through the USDA and FDA, which allows much higher levels of these contaminants than are allowed than with wild salmon, which is regulated by the EPA. A common argument about this is that the EPA has reviewed the scientific literature and made new recommendations much more recently than the FDA. FDA regulations have not been updated since 1984, when people in the U.S. were eating much less salmon and other fish. More information about contaminants in farmed salmon.

Omega-3’s: Farmed fish is fattier -- much as farm animals are “fattened up," the same is true of salmon. This means that there are higher levels of omega-3 fats. But there are caveats regarding this:

1. Because of the contaminants, it is often recommended that farmed salmon be cooked in ways that reduce the fat content.
2. New feeds are being developed with less fish meal in them and more plant foods. In general, the more plant-based ingredients, the lower the level of omega-3 fats in the salmon. (Note that in the ocean, salmon are carnivores: they eat no plants at all.)
3. Even today, the percentage of omega-3 fats is lower in farmed salmon, apparently because of the soybean, wheat, etc., in the meal fed to them.

Environmental Issues: Farmed fish produce a bunch of environmental problems. Read about them at the Seafood Watch site.

But there’s good news. Both wild and farmed salmon have low levels of mercury. Also, salmon is not being over-fished – especially salmon from Alaska is in good shape. More about this from Seafood Watch

Additional Note: Most canned salmon is wild.

Click. I found several links stating similar claims.

Edited by Brainbox, 21 November 2008 - 09:03 PM.

[Dmitri]

Thank you for the info, I will decrease my whole grain intake starting today. I'll stick with oatmeal (to keep my cholesterol stable) and brown rice (I don't think I can ever give this one up) though. The reason I was eating so many whole grains was because the medical community considered them healthy and since I could not live off beans, fruits and vegetables alone I decided to add them. I don't like meat aside from chicken, fish and sea food though it's not good to eat those last two everyday.

Yea, it's hard to know what to eat, and then hard to do it once you figure out what you think is best. So much information, misinformation, opinions, politics, etc. involved. You might like to read about paleolithic diets. (There go your beans along with the grain, unfortunately, if you agree with that school of thought.)

If you are not trying to stay in ketosis, is a little bit of whole grain (and beans), really going to do much damage to you? I don't know, I would think not. Most of the problems are due to the the excess that people eat of those things (and everything).

You probably won't have to worry about your cholesterol, unless you have a genetic hyperlipidemia.

I read that Paleo diets have too much animal toxins; I think I'll keep the beans after all 3 different types (Kidney, Red and Pinto) make the top 5 when it comes to antioxidant content in foods.

[edward]

I read that Paleo diets have too much animal toxins; I think I'll keep the beans after all 3 different types (Kidney, Red and Pinto) make the top 5 when it comes to antioxidant content in foods.

Antioxidant-smoxidants..... Toxins-smoxins...

http://www.imminst.o...ose restriction
http://www.cell.com/...4131(07)00256-2
http://preventdiseas...me/tips24.shtml


edit: Seriously though if you are truly eating paleo, these issue are non issues. You can't get much healthier than organic free range meats, fish, eggs, nuts, low starch veggies, berries, nuts etc, but then I am very biased in that I am convinced after months of obsessively studying the available research on diets combined with self experimentation, of the best way to eat, heck you can even do paleo, low carb CRON if you want to cover all bases.

Edited by edward, 24 November 2008 - 02:42 AM.

[rashlan]

Hi can anyone help me, Does anyone know if Aspartame and Acesulfame K can affect ketosis? any help would be greatly appreciated.

[rashlan]

Hi can anyone help me, Does anyone know if Aspartame and Acesulfame K can affect ketosis? any help would be greatly appreciated.

also could someone explain to me why a ketogenic diet is meant to be relativity low in protein ?

[edward]

This should be merged with the big low carb/keto thread http://www.imminst.o...o...0768&st=180 Has been done, thanks for the hint, Bb.

Aspartame supposedly increases insulin, this will lowering your blood sugar potentially causing cravings for carbohydrates. Dr. Atkins was against aspartame for this reason he was also against caffeine for similar reasons. Personally a diet Coke or two a day doesn't bother me. Some may be more sensitive than others though. I try to use Splenda and drink diet drinks with Splenda though.


As to the protein levels on ketogenic diets. The original ketogenic diets were developed for kids with epilepsy by the mainstream medical community. The idea was maximum amount of ketones and ketosis all the time. Protein affects insulin (though not much) and can be converted to sugar (though very slowly) so a high protein, low fat, low carb diet is not ideal for ketosis.

A ketogenic diet is a high fat diet. Basically you eat the same amount of protein you would normally to keep or gain lean body mass and simply substitute most of the carbohydrate calories with fat calories and voila ketogenic diet. It was only low protein as designed for kids with epilepsy. You can get good results with moderate protein. The key though is HIGH FAT.

Edited by Brainbox, 26 November 2008 - 09:12 AM.

[Dmitri]

I read that Paleo diets have too much animal toxins; I think I'll keep the beans after all 3 different types (Kidney, Red and Pinto) make the top 5 when it comes to antioxidant content in foods.

Antioxidant-smoxidants..... Toxins-smoxins...

http://www.imminst.o...ose restriction
http://www.cell.com/...4131(07)00256-2
http://preventdiseas...me/tips24.shtml


edit: Seriously though if you are truly eating paleo, these issue are non issues. You can't get much healthier than organic free range meats, fish, eggs, nuts, low starch veggies, berries, nuts etc, but then I am very biased in that I am convinced after months of obsessively studying the available research on diets combined with self experimentation, of the best way to eat, heck you can even do paleo, low carb CRON if you want to cover all bases.

Did you not read what I posted on that thread? I'll repost it.

MR mentioned the following on the CR thread:

"I would ignore studies on aging -- and CR in particular -- in non-mammalian species, despite all the hype they've received in recent years.".....

[edward]

I read that Paleo diets have too much animal toxins; I think I'll keep the beans after all 3 different types (Kidney, Red and Pinto) make the top 5 when it comes to antioxidant content in foods.

Antioxidant-smoxidants..... Toxins-smoxins...

http://www.imminst.o...ose restriction
http://www.cell.com/...4131(07)00256-2
http://preventdiseas...me/tips24.shtml


edit: Seriously though if you are truly eating paleo, these issue are non issues. You can't get much healthier than organic free range meats, fish, eggs, nuts, low starch veggies, berries, nuts etc, but then I am very biased in that I am convinced after months of obsessively studying the available research on diets combined with self experimentation, of the best way to eat, heck you can even do paleo, low carb CRON if you want to cover all bases.

Did you not read what I posted on that thread? I'll repost it.

MR mentioned the following on the CR thread:

"I would ignore studies on aging -- and CR in particular -- in non-mammalian species, despite all the hype they've received in recent years.".....

That study was just handy (I knew where it was so could reference it quickly) . There are similar studies in mammals showing hormetic responses CR included being reversed by antioxidant use (I am too lazy right now to go find them for you but its a generally accepted phenomena, just ask MR why he dosen't over indulge on supplments, its the same reason, btw though I respect MR he is not the "the final word" on all on these subjects). The point is external antioxidants for external antioxidants sake are not helpful and may be harmful if consumed all the time.

[rashlan]

This should be merged with the big low carb/keto thread http://www.imminst.o...o...0768&st=180 Has been done, thanks for the hint, Bb.

Aspartame supposedly increases insulin, this will lowering your blood sugar potentially causing cravings for carbohydrates. Dr. Atkins was against aspartame for this reason he was also against caffeine for similar reasons. Personally a diet Coke or two a day doesn't bother me. Some may be more sensitive than others though. I try to use Splenda and drink diet drinks with Splenda though.


As to the protein levels on ketogenic diets. The original ketogenic diets were developed for kids with epilepsy by the mainstream medical community. The idea was maximum amount of ketones and ketosis all the time. Protein affects insulin (though not much) and can be converted to sugar (though very slowly) so a high protein, low fat, low carb diet is not ideal for ketosis.

A ketogenic diet is a high fat diet. Basically you eat the same amount of protein you would normally to keep or gain lean body mass and simply substitute most of the carbohydrate calories with fat calories and voila ketogenic diet. It was only low protein as designed for kids with epilepsy. You can get good results with moderate protein. The key though is HIGH FAT.

Thanks, does Sucralose contain any carbohydrates as the only Diet coke i can find with it has 0.3g of carbs per 250ml?
INGREDIENTS
Carbonated Water, Barley Malt Extract, Natural Flavourings, Phosphoric Acid, Sweetener:Sucralose, Fruit & Vegetable concentrates (Black Carrot, Hibiscus)
Emulsifier: Gum Arabic, Caffine
Allergy information- contains Barley, Gluten

Edited by rashlan, 27 November 2008 - 12:00 AM.

[edward]

Sucralose itself has 0 carbs and 0 nutritive value. Your assessment of the Carbs in Diet Coke makes sense and the actual carbs are coming from something other than the Sucralose. Howevever Splenda packets have dextrose and maltodextrin which do add carbs. Personally I count each splenda packet as half a gram of carbs, some people count each packet as 1 gram of carbs. Regardless not much.

[Dmitri]

I read that Paleo diets have too much animal toxins; I think I'll keep the beans after all 3 different types (Kidney, Red and Pinto) make the top 5 when it comes to antioxidant content in foods.

Antioxidant-smoxidants..... Toxins-smoxins...

http://www.imminst.o...ose restriction
http://www.cell.com/...4131(07)00256-2
http://preventdiseas...me/tips24.shtml


edit: Seriously though if you are truly eating paleo, these issue are non issues. You can't get much healthier than organic free range meats, fish, eggs, nuts, low starch veggies, berries, nuts etc, but then I am very biased in that I am convinced after months of obsessively studying the available research on diets combined with self experimentation, of the best way to eat, heck you can even do paleo, low carb CRON if you want to cover all bases.

Did you not read what I posted on that thread? I'll repost it.

MR mentioned the following on the CR thread:

"I would ignore studies on aging -- and CR in particular -- in non-mammalian species, despite all the hype they've received in recent years.".....

That study was just handy (I knew where it was so could reference it quickly) . There are similar studies in mammals showing hormetic responses CR included being reversed by antioxidant use (I am too lazy right now to go find them for you but its a generally accepted phenomena, just ask MR why he dosen't over indulge on supplments, its the same reason, btw though I respect MR he is not the "the final word" on all on these subjects). The point is external antioxidants for external antioxidants sake are not helpful and may be harmful if consumed all the time.

What are your thoughts on the following:

Shepard said: "A ketogenic diet doesn't necessarily include a lot of meat, and neither is it necessarily high in protein. That said, Atkins dieters have shown higher methylglyoxal levels, which I've yet to see a strong dismissal of from the low-carb "gurus". And, you've got the potential for higher ALEs, depending on fat source.

Bottom line: Any diet can kill you if you nit-pick enough with basic outlines (low-carb, low-fat, etc.). It's the layer under that that really shows the quality of a diet."

[woly]

heres an interesting study i found. What does everyone think of this?

In vivo assessment of toxicity and pharmacokinetics of methylglyoxal: Augmentation of the curative effect of methylglyoxal on cancer-bearing mice by ascorbic acid and creatine

Abstract

Previous in vivo studies from several laboratories had shown remarkable curative effect of methylglyoxal on cancer-bearing animals. In contrast, most of the recent in vitro studies have assigned a toxic role for methylglyoxal. The present study was initiated with the objective to resolve whether methylglyoxal is truly toxic in vivo and to reassess its therapeutic potential. Four species of animals, both rodent and non-rodent, were treated with different doses of methylglyoxal through oral, subcutaneous and intravenous routes. Acute (treatment for only 1 day) toxicity tests had been done with mouse and rat. These animals received 2, 1 and 0.3 g of methylglyoxal/kg of body weight in a day through oral, subcutaneous and intravenous routes respectively. Chronic (treatment for around a month) toxicity test had been done with mouse, rat, rabbit and dog. Mouse, rat and dog received 1, 0.3 and 0.1 g of methylglyoxal/kg of body weight in a day through oral, subcutaneous and intravenous routes respectively. Rabbit received 0.55, 0.3 and 0.1 g of methylglyoxal/kg of body weight in a day through oral, subcutaneous and intravenous routes respectively. It had been observed that methylglyoxal had no deleterious effect on the physical and behavioral pattern of the treated animals. Fertility and teratogenecity studies were done with rats that were subjected to chronic toxicity tests. It had been observed that these animals produced healthy litters indicating no damage of the reproductive systems as well as no deleterious effect on the offspring. Studies on several biochemical and hematological parameters of methylglyoxal-treated rats and dogs and histological studies of several organs of methylglyoxal-treated mouse were performed. These studies indicated that methylglyoxal had no apparent deleterious effect on some vital organs of these animals. A detailed pharmacokinetic study was done with mouse after oral administration of methylglyoxal. The effect of methylglyoxal alone and in combination with creatine and ascorbic acid on cancer-bearing animals had been investigated by measuring the increase in life span and tumor cell growth inhibition. The results indicated that anticancer effect of methylglyoxal was significantly augmented by ascorbic acid and further augmented by ascorbic acid and creatine. Nearly 80% of the animals treated with methylglyoxal plus ascorbic acid plus creatine were completely cured and devoid of any malignant cells within the peritoneal cavity.

Also fyi this is one of the low carb "gurus" responses to the increased methylglyoxal
link

[Shepard]

heres an interesting study i found. What does everyone think of this?

In vivo assessment of toxicity and pharmacokinetics of methylglyoxal: Augmentation of the curative effect of methylglyoxal on cancer-bearing mice by ascorbic acid and creatine

This is a fairly interesting paper and does relax some of the worries that I have. I'd love to see this replicated in humans, as the in vitro evidence is damn ugly. The paper does limit itself to cancer cell proliferation (they do mention cardiac mitochondria and various enzyme levels), which is nice but a more thorough rebuttal of the assumed dangers of methylglyoxal would be welcome.

Also fyi this is one of the low carb "gurus" responses to the increased methylglyoxal
link

This has been discussed on the forum. My opinion of Eades isn't that great since I think he's lost his objectivism due to his reliance on the popularity of the low-carb diet. But, many others like him. He has valid points that have been covered in this thread, but his dismissal of the dangers of AGEs in foods and his belittling of the Annals of the New York Academy of Science hurt his argument.

Edited by shepard, 27 November 2008 - 04:35 PM.

[Shepard]

More on inhibiting glycolysis and cancer:

http://www.nutrition...3-7075-5-33.pdf

[Mind]

Low carb dieting and mental performance

"Low-carb diets," Taylor added, "in the initial time period when they're actually no-carb diets, have the greatest potential to impair cognitive function because the brain uses glucose (sugar) as its primary fuel. The body breaks carbohydrates down into smaller components, including glucose, which the brain gets from the bloodstream, Taylor explained. So once carbohydrate stores are gone, the brain starts to starve.

Hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar, is known to worsen brain function, while low-carbohydrate diets that force the body to use body fat for fuel, a process known as ketosis, have long been used to control seizures, which "suggests that they can profoundly influence brain functioning," Taylor and her team note in the journal Appetite.

To investigate how low-carb diets might impact thinking and mood, they had 19 women choose either a low-calorie, balanced diet recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA), or a low-carb diet in which they cut out carbohydrates completely for a week and then gradually reintroduced them to their diets.

The study participants completed several tests of mood and cognitive function 72 hours before they began the diets and 48 hours, one week, two week and three weeks after starting the diet.

The nine women who chose the low-carb diet fared worse on tests of their memory during the first week of the diet, when no carbohydrates were allowed, than the 10 women on the ADA diet. Once they started eating carbs again, the memory differences between the two groups disappeared.

"Even with a very small amount of carbohydrate, performance returned to normal," Taylor said. She pointed out that the diet allowed them to add just 5 to 8 grams of carbs a day, while the daily recommended intake of carbohydrates for people who aren't trying to lose weight is 130 grams.

Wow, 5 to 8 grams of carbs a day is still extremely low.

[FunkOdyssey]

I'm 19 with really annoying arthritis in my knees and hips.

Lyme Disease

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 05 January 2009 - 07:35 PM.

[Shepard]

Helps with the fat liver:

Hepatology. 2008 Nov;48(5):1487-96.
Alterations in hepatic glucose and energy metabolism as a result of calorie and carbohydrate restriction.
Browning JD, Weis B, Davis J, Satapati S, Merritt M, Malloy CR, Burgess SC.

Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX, USA. jeffrey.browning@utsouthwestern.edu

Carbohydrate restriction is a common weight-loss approach that modifies hepatic metabolism by increasing gluconeogenesis (GNG) and ketosis. Because little is known about the effect of carbohydrate restriction on the origin of gluconeogenic precursors (GNG from glycerol [GNG(glycerol)] and GNG from lactate/amino acids [GNG(phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP))]) or its consequence to hepatic energy homeostasis, we studied these parameters in a group of overweight/obese subjects undergoing weight-loss via dietary restriction. We used (2)H and (13)C tracers and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to measure the sources of hepatic glucose and tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle flux in weight-stable subjects (n = 7) and subjects following carbohydrate restriction (n = 7) or calorie restriction (n = 7). The majority of hepatic glucose production in carbohydrate restricted subjects came from GNG(PEP). The contribution of glycerol to GNG was similar in all groups despite evidence of increased fat oxidation in carbohydrate restricted subjects. A strong correlation between TCA cycle flux and GNG(PEP) was found, though the reliance on TCA cycle energy production for GNG was attenuated in subjects undergoing carbohydrate restriction. Together, these data imply that the TCA cycle is the energetic patron of GNG. However, the relationship between these two pathways is modified by carbohydrate restriction, suggesting an increased reliance of the hepatocyte on energy generated outside of the TCA cycle when GNG(PEP) is maximal. CONCLUSION: Carbohydrate restriction modifies hepatic GNG by increasing reliance on substrates like lactate or amino acids but not glycerol. This modification is associated with a reorganization of hepatic energy metabolism suggestive of enhanced hepatic beta-oxidation.

PMID: 18925642 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[caston]

Aren't their health problems associated with having ketone levels that are to high?

Or is that just when due to insulin resistance the body cannot use glucose (even though it is there) and then starts producing ketone's instead.
So it is bad to have high levels of BOTH glucose and ketones.

Which fuel does the body prefer glucose or ketones?

Can the brain also run on lactate? Which does it "prefer" lactate or glucose?

Anyone know where I can buy a device that tests blood for both ketones and glucose? e.g.

http://www.abbottdia...rofile_0004.htm

Edited by caston, 20 January 2009 - 03:44 PM.

[Shepard]

Since the brain prioritizes glucose above all other fuels when it's available, it probably prefers glucose. Now, you'll get a lot of people saying that they have better mental acuity while in ketosis after a while.

Lactate is a byproduct of glucose metabolism. Astrocytes shuttle lactate to neurons (and maybe elsewhere) for fuel. The full extent of lactate oxidation in the brain is still unknown (at least I don't know about it), but seems to happen largely during brain activation and to spare glucose for other purposes.

[caston]

Yeah so acetone is a ketone... and I believe aceton is neurotoxic... I guess it depends *what* ketones you are running on... not just ok awesome i'm running on some random compound from the whole function group in organic chemistry that is classified as ketone's because they have a carbonyl group and or/and link to two other carbon atoms.

Edited by caston, 21 January 2009 - 04:56 AM.

[Prometheus]

heres an interesting study i found. What does everyone think of this?

In vivo assessment of toxicity and pharmacokinetics of methylglyoxal: Augmentation of the curative effect of methylglyoxal on cancer-bearing mice by ascorbic acid and creatine

This is a fairly interesting paper and does relax some of the worries that I have. I'd love to see this replicated in humans, as the in vitro evidence is damn ugly. The paper does limit itself to cancer cell proliferation (they do mention cardiac mitochondria and various enzyme levels), which is nice but a more thorough rebuttal of the assumed dangers of methylglyoxal would be welcome.

Also fyi this is one of the low carb "gurus" responses to the increased methylglyoxal
link

This has been discussed on the forum. My opinion of Eades isn't that great since I think he's lost his objectivism due to his reliance on the popularity of the low-carb diet. But, many others like him. He has valid points that have been covered in this thread, but his dismissal of the dangers of AGEs in foods and his belittling of the Annals of the New York Academy of Science hurt his argument.

I support his criticism related to the Annals paper. The data too crap to support any contention and I'm surprised the erudite Dr de Grey who is usually so particular on experimental methodology if the results of a study contradict his theories, uses this far reaching driblet in his book, which remains conspicuously solitary in the literature, to criticize high protein diets whose health benefits continue to be supported by mountains published of clinical data.

[Shepard]

I support his criticism related to the Annals paper. The data too crap to support any contention and I'm surprised the erudite Dr de Grey who is usually so particular on experimental methodology if the results of a study contradict his theories, uses this far reaching driblet in his book, which remains conspicuously solitary in the literature, to criticize high protein diets whose health benefits continue to be supported by mountains published of clinical data.

Who said anything about high protein diets? Sure, the study could be better. Find me a diet study that couldn't. Do you have issues with the studies cited in the MG paper that also link elevated levels of acetol or lipoxidation to elevated methylglyoxal?

[Prometheus]

I support his criticism related to the Annals paper. The data too crap to support any contention and I'm surprised the erudite Dr de Grey who is usually so particular on experimental methodology if the results of a study contradict his theories, uses this far reaching driblet in his book, which remains conspicuously solitary in the literature, to criticize high protein diets whose health benefits continue to be supported by mountains published of clinical data.

Who said anything about high protein diets? Sure, the study could be better. Find me a diet study that couldn't. Do you have issues with the studies cited in the MG paper that also link elevated levels of acetol or lipoxidation to elevated methylglyoxal?

He did in his book. Excerpt quoted below:

Unfortunately, it turns out that the metabolic state that these diets induce (the notorious “ketosis”) has the unfortunate side effect of causing a jump in the production of the oxoaldehyde methylglycoxal, a major precursor of AGE’s that is also, ironically, produced within the cells of diabetic patients when they are forced to take in more glucose than they can immediately process. A recent study tested the size of this effect in healthy people who successfully followed the first two phases of the atkins diet for a month, and who had the ketones in their urine to prove that they were sticking to the diet. These previously healthy people suffered a doubling of their methylglycoxal levels, leading to concentrations even worse than those seen in poorly controlled diabetics. Like other oxoaldehydes, methylglycoxal is far more chemically reactive than blood sugar (up to 40,000 times more reactive, in fact), and is known to cause wide-ranging damage in th body, of which AGE cross-links are but one example. This potentially makes the atkins diet a recipe for accelerated AGEing, not a reprieve from it.

Are you kidding me about finding better studies? Did you see the size of the SE? If you attend uni run it by one of your profs and see what he thinks.

[Shepard]

I still don't see anything about high protein diets. I see talk about ketosis.

Yes, I saw the deviation you've complained about. It's a combination of the compliant and non-compliant members of the study, so it's expected to be screwed.