230 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Worst article I saw today: US Government creating low-fat cake and frosting.

Great, now it will be all carbs and sugar! I couldn't help but rip on this effort. Let me spew a whole steaming pile of low-quality anecdotal evidence and reasoning on this article. The US government has been on an anti-fat crusade (and crusade is the correct terminology here, since it has all the aspects of religious effort) for a few decades now. Doctors and nutritionists advised millions upon millions of people to avoid fat of all kinds. The supermarket shelves are filled with endless "fat-free" products. All of these products got rid of the natural ingredient (fat) and put in sugar and other various carb-based fillers. What happened after this decades-long effort? We have a nation of carb-asses. We have an obesity epidemic. We have a diabetes epidemic. Yet, in this article we see the US Government actually spending money on more carbalicious sugary treats. ARRRGGG!

[oehaut]

Worst article I saw today: US Government creating low-fat cake and frosting.

Great, now it will be all carbs and sugar! I couldn't help but rip on this effort. Let me spew a whole steaming pile of low-quality anecdotal evidence and reasoning on this article. The US government has been on an anti-fat crusade (and crusade is the correct terminology here, since it has all the aspects of religious effort) for a few decades now. Doctors and nutritionists advised millions upon millions of people to avoid fat of all kinds. The supermarket shelves are filled with endless "fat-free" products. All of these products got rid of the natural ingredient (fat) and put in sugar and other various carb-based fillers. What happened after this decades-long effort? We have a nation of carb-asses. We have an obesity epidemic. We have a diabetes epidemic. Yet, in this article we see the US Government actually spending money on more carbalicious sugary treats. ARRRGGG!

It's especially sad to see that the low-fat craze is still going on in 2010, even if for some long time now some very influent people (such as Walter Willet), nutritionist and MD are telling that low-fat is not the answer.

Any popular magazine that I pick up and talk about weight loss always says : To loose weight, cut the fat and the calorie.

But now that's funny because usually just after this they say : Almond is a very healthy snack.

Somehow there is some progress I guess....

Edited by oehaut, 05 April 2010 - 04:55 PM.

[Esoparagon]

Just in case no one has said this yet for those who are still rather pro-carb and don't believe there is anything to eating low carb.

It is biologically impossible to store fat into fat cells without carbohydrates. Even dietary fat cannot be dumped into fat cells without carbohydrates.
It is biologically impossible release and metabolize fat without lowered insulin. Carbohydrates raise insulin.

I thought the carbohydrate thing was stupid but it's scientific fact.

The other thing I cringe at is when people say we ate fruit in ancient times. We probably did but not like the fruit we have today. It was like blueberries and other tiny low calorie and therefore relatively low carb berries. Fruits like apples, bananas, pears, and so on are gigantic cultivated fruits compared to what they were in nature that could not and did not exist in nature. Modern fruits are like over grown mutants. When it comes to fruit, if it's not tiny, don't eat it because it's cultivated and full of sucrose.

For weight loss, it's low carb all the way. For maintenance of weight and long term health, I'd say it's less than 50 to 100 grams of carbs a day depending on the person and their size and if they are vegan or vegetarian. Yes, you can be vegan and eat sub-100 grams of carbs with plenty of nutrition, I've crunched the numbers in CRON-o-meter.

[Sillewater]

I haven't had much time to look into this whole issue yet but those two statements are only half-truths:

Pharmacol Res. 2006 Jun;53(6):482-91. Epub 2006 Mar 27.Adipose tissue lipolysis as a metabolic pathway to define pharmacological strategies against obesity and the metabolic syndrome.Langin D.

Firstly if you read the paper by Langin, lipolysis is much more complicated than insulin levels.

But first, I'll deal with the fact that you can't store lipids without carbs (well not me but I'll point you to someone who has):

Dave @ Spark of Reason has a post on ASP
http://sparkofreason...ick-in-asp.html

Read his blog post and you'll get a pretty good idea of how fat can be stored. If you are more pubmed oriented here ya go: (J Biol Chem. 1999 Jun 25;274(26):18243-51.Mechanisms involved in the regulation of free fatty acid release from isolated human fat cells by acylation-stimulating protein and insulin.Van Harmelen V, Reynisdottir S, Cianflone K, Degerman E, Hoffstedt J, Nilsell K, Sniderman A, Arner P.)

It is true that with high insulin levels that in healthy folks lipolysis is basically shut-off but most healthy people do not spend 24 hours with that high of an insulin level. It can be argued that most obese people nowadays probably have high insulin levels, but I do remember reading a study saying that 50% of obese/overweight are totally insulin sensitive.

For an alternative view of insulin this paper is great:

Br J Anaesth. 2000 Jul;85(1):69-79.Insulin: understanding its action in health and disease.Sonksen P, Sonksen J.

In the end it is all about calories as shown by a recent RCT:

Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 3;153(3):147-57.Weight and metabolic outcomes after 2 years on a low-carbohydrate versus low-fat diet: a randomized trial.Foster GD, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, Makris AP, Rosenbaum DL, Brill C, Stein RI, Mohammed BS, Miller B, Rader DJ, Zemel B, Wadden TA, Tenhave T, Newcomb CW, Klein S.

One more just for kicks:

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jun;292(6):E1770-4. Epub 2007 Feb 13.Basal and insulin-regulated free fatty acid and glucose metabolism in humans.Shadid S, Kanaley JA, Sheehan MT, Jensen MD.

....We also found that suppression of lipolysis by physiologicalinsulin concentrations did not disrupt the relationship betweenFFA flux and REE.

In the end its all about calories. While the mechanisms are simple the overarching principle is simple, calories in = calories out. Now what amount of carbohydrate to consume is still up for debate. ASP definitely seems to vary widely among people and it reacts to insulin and a bunch of other hormones. So in some (probably most) cases low-carbohydrate dieting is best, but in the bigger picture it is still the fact that individuals are eating less that causes them to lose weight.

Now on whether there is a metabolic advantage or not, I do not know (doubly-labeled water metabolic ward studies show there is not), but in my experience I have noticed that I can eat 300 calories more without gaining weight (but I have no idea of the composition of that weight).

I have a post in the calorie fallacy thread pointing to an article by Lyle Mcdonald which can possibly explain MAD (if it does exist):

http://www.imminst.o...990#entry409990

[oehaut]

Just in case no one has said this yet for those who are still rather pro-carb and don't believe there is anything to eating low carb.

It is biologically impossible to store fat into fat cells without carbohydrates. Even dietary fat cannot be dumped into fat cells without carbohydrates.
It is biologically impossible release and metabolize fat without lowered insulin. Carbohydrates raise insulin.

Wrong and,
Wrong.

Please educate yourself with this awesome blog

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/


You might start with this one

http://carbsanity.bl...-iii-of-is.html

but then I would read everything that is comprised in the GCBC fact check

Finally, you should read the whole insulin series from James Krieger. Here is the final one.

Insulin, An Undeserved Bad Reputation: The Finale

For weight loss, it's low carb all the way. For maintenance of weight and long term health, I'd say it's less than 50 to 100 grams of carbs a day depending on the person and their size and if they are vegan or vegetarian. Yes, you can be vegan and eat sub-100 grams of carbs with plenty of nutrition, I've crunched the numbers in CRON-o-meter.

For weight loss, it's negative calorie balance all the way. For the optimal body composition, it's calorie balance equation respected, adequate protein, and carbs cycling.

Edited by oehaut, 10 December 2010 - 07:50 PM.

[oehaut]

can someone delete this one please.

Edited by oehaut, 10 December 2010 - 07:50 PM.

[Sillewater]

The carbsanity blog is interesting. Thanks.

[oehaut]

The carbsanity blog is interesting. Thanks.

Indeed, and it's perfect for anyone who has gotten too far into the current carbophobia (I've been there, too). There is more pseudoscience regarding low-carb right now than there has ever been regarding low-fat or whatever other nutritional science subject please you.

[Sillewater]

The carbsanity blog is interesting. Thanks.

Indeed, and it's perfect for anyone who has gotten too far into the current carbophobia (I've been there, too). There is more pseudoscience regarding low-carb right now than there has ever been regarding low-fat or whatever other nutritional science subject please you.

Well I wouldn't quite say its based on pseudoscience. This type of thing always happens when the public grabs hold of something (most don't have the background to understand the physiology behind nutrition and exercise).

Most of the erroneous claims probably comes from Gary Taube's book, hopefully his new book will discuss the ideas regarding glyceroneogenesis and ASP.

[AstralStorm]

You people should've stopped name-calling around page 5.

Now, more n=1:
I've lost weight on both low-carb and plain almost-standard low calorie diet. In hindsight, the reason is simple - most of these fats weren't absorbed due to not enough bile to emulsify them. The result was fatty stool and probably ended up as low or normal calorie diet, high in protein. Medium term (3 months), the high fat diet worsened my lipid panel in comparison to free eating, while the standard low calorie diet (not low-fat) caused it to improve. (more than 10% LDL/HDL each from baseline)
I suppose though that general increase in cholesterol intake could be blamed.

Unfortunately I don't have the resources to run a large trial, that would be fun to watch and design.

Other points:
As for whether carbohydrates are necessary - the only strong studies say they are for proper functioning of the brain, but not how much. We could draft a lower estimate though from this.
About nitrogen measurements - this is an average, I could eat any reasonable mix and end up with the same average composition of isotopes.
Glycemic index and glycemic load - the conclusive studies recommending lower values have been made on diabetics - not exactly a reference group, but still a useful data point. And there they didn't replace calorie for calorie, but gram for gram, so the confounder of lower calorie diet was still present.

[yoyo]

Carb are bad for you.

So are fats.

Protein too.

even ETOH

eat less, only solution.

[oehaut]

Well I wouldn't quite say its based on pseudoscience. This type of thing always happens when the public grabs hold of something (most don't have the background to understand the physiology behind nutrition and exercise).

Most of the erroneous claims probably comes from Gary Taube's book, hopefully his new book will discuss the ideas regarding glyceroneogenesis and ASP.

I would venture that about 99.9% of the nonsens that we can read on the internet regarding low-carb comes from Good Calorie Bad Calorie. I think this book is highly pseudoscientific, if you ask me. Biased and selective interpretation of the litterature, with a clear goal in mind, by a narrow minded individual, who made a lot of half true if not down right false claims.

And now sadly you've got a lot of individual running blog, with, as you said, no education in physiology, nutrition, exercise science, biochemistry, and who dare looking down on individual like James Krieger or some MD or Ph. D who are much more knowledgeable, have formal education in a revelant feild, have real life results (more than anecodtal n=1 "I lost 50lbs with a low-carb diet" that most blogger have).

It seems like anyone can become an expert nowaday, and that's rather scary and annoying. It's about time that M. Taubes admit that insulin is not the key to fat storage/loss and that he was wrong. He knows it now. What will the low-carbophobic do when their God admit that he was wrong? oh boy! (he shall never say it explicitly, tho)

Edited by oehaut, 11 December 2010 - 09:35 PM.

[Sillewater]

I would venture that about 99.9% of the nonsens that we can read on the internet regarding low-carb comes from Good Calorie Bad Calorie. I think this book is highly pseudoscientific, if you ask me. Biased and selective interpretation of the litterature, with a clear goal in mind, by a narrow minded individual, who made a lot of half true if not down right false claims.

And now sadly you've got a lot of individual running blog, with, as you said, no education in physiology, nutrition, exercise science, biochemistry, and who dare looking down on individual like James Krieger or some MD or Ph. D who are much more knowledgeable, have formal education in a revelant feild, have real life results (more than anecodtal n=1 "I lost 50lbs with a low-carb diet" that most blogger have).

It seems like anyone can become an expert nowaday, and that's rather scary and annoying. It's about time that M. Taubes admit that insulin is not the key to fat storage/loss and that he was wrong. He knows it now. What will the low-carbophobic do when their God admit that he was wrong? oh boy! (he shall never say it explicitly, tho)

I wouldn't say that Taubes consciously chose to be biased, selective, and narrow-minded. He just happened to look at the research and saw something that many people did not see and put it into a book. Because of Taubes we have blogs such as Carbsanity and people like James Krieger looking into whether what Taube claims to be true.

Let me be more specific and state that I do not believe that just because you have no "proper" education in the field you have no ability to understand it. There's tons of MD/PhD's that I would consider to be blatantly wrong. Everyone's ideas has to be judged based on the evidence they provide (and I am not just speaking about RCT, this whole evidence based medicine thing is getting out of hand in my opinion) and the quality of the reasoning utilized.

What has been shown regarding low-carb dieting is that it is easier to lose weight on it. Whether it is anecdotal or not, it is just easier to lose weight. Whether it is because you are removing a food-group, or protein/fats are more satiating, or that your appetite regulation system compensates better for what you eat through exercises and non-exercise movement, etc... I don't know but it works (for most). And I would have to say it is probably healthier than a similiar caloric intake high-carb diet. (except for CR diets a zone-ish diet would be good, except for maybe the protein intake).

[Ace of Zardoz]

Studies show that low fat diets are harmful to heart health and lipid profiles. Studies also show that 10% protein diets minimize heart disease and cancer as well as kidney disease significantly compared to 20 and 50% protein diets both of which significantly increased heart disease by more than 30% in both 20% and 50% protein diets.

I have yet to see a decent study on high carbs. Proteins breakdown into more harmful chemicals than carbs as do fats. Carbs are the cleanest burning fuel in the body so to speak.

Carbs only become an issue generally when people consume far too many total calories with a large bulk of them coming from carbs as well as consuming highl refined carbs. If you consume more carbs than you're using, thats when the problems occur. Although any excess calories translate to fat storage whether its protein, carbs or fat.

Most people consume FAR FAR more protein than their bodies require on top of consuming high GI carbs spiking insulin production and excess fats while consuming far too many calories and being far too inactive. Period.

If carbs are so harmful then, please explain the pritikin diet studies and successes. The pritikin diet is 70 to 80% carbs generally yet has been successfully used to reverse and treat many diseases.

More than 110 studies published in top medical journals over the past 30 years have documented the Pritikin Program’s phenomenal success in helping thousands worldwide shed excess pounds, lower their cholesterol and blood pressure, prevent and even reverse epidemic diseases like heart disease and diabetes.

The issue is people eat far too much processed, sugar laden, fat free crap. The more processed an item is the high GI the carbs end up. This is why raw foods as much as possible are best.

[Sillewater]

How much protein is optimal?

[Ace of Zardoz]

How much protein is optimal?

10% is optimal for the average population. The optimal condition is to remain protein neutral as much as possible as protein negative balances in the body aren't meeting nutritional needs and related processes while protein positive balances lead to excess production of waste byproducts, free radicals, fat storage (if not used for fuel, though carbs are preferred by the body generally), and many negative consequences in general.

That would be 10% based on a roughly 2,000 cal diet. The average male requires 56 grams of protein while the average female requires 40 grams roughly. Athletes may require slightly more but no one should need more to 80 to 90 grams of protein ever. Its best to start around the figures given above and adjust slightly as needed.

In any developed society it is almost impossible to be protein deficient. Even strict vegetarians can easily get all their protein requirements from complex carbohydrates.

Protein Cons:

* Proteins have a high amount of nitrogen. When nitrogen is broken down in the liver it creates ammonia. Ammonia is poisonous. The increased level of ammonia in the body is harmful to cells and may decrease atheletic performance.

* Stress on kidneys occurs when more than 2 grams per kilogram of ideal body weight per day is consumed.

* High levels of protein intake require increased amount of vitamin B6. It is possible to become deficient in vitamin B6 while using a high protein diet.

* Calcium loss, which leads to osteoporosis, occurs with high levels of protein intake.

For the average person 2 grams per kg of protein would be 136 grams. I have seen many athletes exceed this greatly if not even double this amount.

Extra protein doesnt build muscle, proper exercise, a healthy diet and sufficient rest do. Some may argue that protein synthesis is slightly increased with higher intakes but this is ridiculous as the benefit is extremely small and the cost of excess protein is very high as it strains both the heart and kidneys ultimately via ammonia acting on the kidneys and methionine acting on the heart. Methionine is what leads to the depletion of B6 ultimately.

[Sillewater]

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):52-7.Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.Elango R, Humayun MA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB.

This paper shows that protein requirements are probably a bit under 1g/kg. Fontana's recent paper on CR-folk shows that intake above RDA raises IGF-1 (which is probably one component of the CR effect). Considering that RDA intake is 0.66-0.8kg/day the 1g/kg does seem kinda high, but based on the new technique and new model this is what is required to maintain proper nitrogen balance (hopefully avoid osteoporosis).

Now regarding muscle-building and athletes, most would probably disagree with what you state. However a simple 20g post-workout is suffice to max-out MPS (but I do not know about the effects on performance, there's tons of research showing that endurance athletes also need extra protein).

Don't know about maintaining though. But periods of nutrient depletion seems to be required for muscle synthesis. This may be due to the effect that IF has on *increasing IGF-1 which is worrisome (but I am moderately calorie restricted. Would like an opportunity to get my IGF-1 tested before and after).

As far as I am concerned I haven't seen any research that puts a cap on protein intake. Not enough research to make such a claim.

[Ace of Zardoz]

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):52-7.Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.Elango R, Humayun MA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB.

This paper shows that protein requirements are probably a bit under 1g/kg. Fontana's recent paper on CR-folk shows that intake above RDA raises IGF-1 (which is probably one component of the CR effect). Considering that RDA intake is 0.66-0.8kg/day the 1g/kg does seem kinda high, but based on the new technique and new model this is what is required to maintain proper nitrogen balance (hopefully avoid osteoporosis).

Actually in CR IGF-1 levels lower. So raised IGF-1 levels are not part of the CR effect.

Now regarding muscle-building and athletes, most would probably disagree with what you state. However a simple 20g post-workout is suffice to max-out MPS (but I do not know about the effects on performance, there's tons of research showing that endurance athletes also need extra protein).

Most athletes buy into the high protein myth period. I lift very heavy plus do a lot of cardio and 10 to 15% protein has always been more than adequate. I average closer to 10 to 12% now and it has not affected my health or my workouts despite my build being much larger than average. I also follow an almost entirely vegetarian diet ie I rarely eat animal protein. In the last 3 months desipite high carb and low protein I put on 8 lbs of lean mass training with HIT.

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Walford compiled data from MH Ross and GJ Bras studies on low protein effects on rats which show low protein is desirable across the board. This also correlates well with what the pritikin studies show. Both walford and pritikin believed in 10% protein as ideal and 15% maximum intake. Pritikin even wrote a book titled Pritikin Diet for Runners in which he showed 10% to 15% protein was adequate for athletes in general and higher carbs sped recovery times from workouts among other issues. Many atheletes who go high protein also suffer poor health or shortened lifespan later on. There were many deaths of olympic level runners despite having excellent cardio conditioning due to heart disease. This is what prompted pritikin to write his book. Many bodybuilders die young or have to stop training between 35 and 50 due to damage to bodies or health issues. This is the highest protein ingesting population and its uncommon to see them lifting weights beyond 50 and sometimes even beyond 35 to 40 is uncommon.Recreational lifters tend to fare much better health wise. Incidentally they usually (but not always) ingest less protein, at least the ones who make it beyond 50 and still lift.

Don't know about maintaining though. But periods of nutrient depletion seems to be required for muscle synthesis. This may be due to the effect that IF has on *increasing IGF-1 which is worrisome (but I am moderately calorie restricted. Would like an opportunity to get my IGF-1 tested before and after).

CRAN (Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition) animals (which have reduced IGF−1 blood levels and increased longevity) show a 6-fold increase in cancer cell proliferation when IGF−1 serum levels are artificially restored to "normal" [CANCER RESEARCH; Dunn,SE; 57(21):4667-4672 (1997)].

So how does increasing IGF-1 relate to longevity? Low IGF-1 is beneficial.

As far as I am concerned I haven't seen any research that puts a cap on protein intake. Not enough research to make such a claim.

High protein is hard on the kidneys and the body. Walford's compilation of MH ross and GJ bras studies show this as does numerous others.

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/2859733.stm

Also one study [AMERCIAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASE 27(5):652-662 (1996)] compared kidney patients on a low protein diet (0.73gm/kg/day) with patients on a very low protein diet (0.66 gm/kg/day). It was concluded that for every 0.2 gm/kg/day of protein increase there was a 29% GFR (Glomerular Filtration Rate) decline associated with a 41% prolongation in the time before the patients experienced renal failure.

Another study [KIDNEY INT 49(6):1783-1786 (1996)] comparing usual (1.3 gm/kg/day) protein diets with low protein diets (0.58 gm/kg/day) found a 28% lower GFR in the low protein group after 3 years on the diets. It was noted that the low protein group had lower blood pressure.

I'd say these studies plus many others suggest low protein is better period and capping protein intake is beneficial.

[Ace of Zardoz]

Interesting video IMO

[Sillewater]

That's what I meant (low IGF-1 is part of the CR effect) I wasn't very clear in that sentence. While I agree that lower protein is better (I keep my protein intake at 1g/kg).

The whole thing about athletes suffering from poor health and etc... I haven't seen any hard data on that (except for the studies showing marathon runners suffer from more plaque) but if that were true it would be hard to blame it on protein intake because not only do they stress their body to unfathomable levels but also eat like shit everywhere else.

The rest of us don't have kidney disease. My friend who bodybuilds doesn't have kidney disease.

Edit: http://carbsanity.bl...y-and-eric.html (here's someone take on MAD)

Edited by Sillewater, 12 December 2010 - 07:11 PM.

[Ace of Zardoz]

That's what I meant (low IGF-1 is part of the CR effect) I wasn't very clear in that sentence. While I agree that lower protein is better (I keep my protein intake at 1g/kg).

The whole thing about athletes suffering from poor health and etc... I haven't seen any hard data on that (except for the studies showing marathon runners suffer from more plaque) but if that were true it would be hard to blame it on protein intake because not only do they stress their body to unfathomable levels but also eat like shit everywhere else.

The rest of us don't have kidney disease. My friend who bodybuilds doesn't have kidney disease.

Edit: http://carbsanity.bl...y-and-eric.html (here's someone take on MAD)

High protein intakes affect GFR and put a heavier load on the kidneys. This is shown all of the time in lab testing and studies. High protein also contributes to much higher homocysteine levels which contributes to heart disease. Also proven. Homocysteine robs the body of B6 when the body eliminates it. None of this is desirable. I think everyone can agree on this much.

The verdict is generally the lower the better as far as protein goes as long as your needs are being met nutritionally.

I bet your friend (bodybuilder) has a worse GFR than the average person. All bodybuilders do. Bodybuilding is very unhealthy sport. Repeated injuries, long term joint damage and heart/kidney issues are common for long term bodybuilders. Weightlifters dont face as many of these issues unless they are trying to eat and train like bodybuilders.

[yoyo]

I'm laughing at the antiprotein stuff. Especially posting research on kidney patients.

[oehaut]

I wouldn't say that Taubes consciously chose to be biased, selective, and narrow-minded. He just happened to look at the research and saw something that many people did not see and put it into a book. Because of Taubes we have blogs such as Carbsanity and people like James Krieger looking into whether what Taube claims to be true.

If you look at the article that I linked from Carbsanity, wouldn't you agree that when someone read a text, and in some part of that text there argument is being nullified and they simply ignore it, they consciously choose to be biased, selectire, and narrow-minded? He use a paragraph from the text as being definitive when in the paragraph right under his own thesis is being proven wrong, yet he ignored that completly.

Let me be more specific and state that I do not believe that just because you have no "proper" education in the field you have no ability to understand it. There's tons of MD/PhD's that I would consider to be blatantly wrong. Everyone's ideas has to be judged based on the evidence they provide (and I am not just speaking about RCT, this whole evidence based medicine thing is getting out of hand in my opinion) and the quality of the reasoning utilized.

I agree here, obviously, that the message is of importance, not the messenger. This is always what i'm gonna judge what is being said on. Where I disagree is when layman, with no background in revelant feild, start talking like they know better than people who have studied that field. Sure, doesn't make those people right by default, but it's not because I can read on mechanic on the internet that i'm gonna go and tell my mechanics how to do is job. Most of this people don't have the experience, knowledge and training to understand truely what they are talking about, but they all talk like they do. And they go around saying stuff like Insulin is the key to weight loss, calories don't count.

As someone who's trying to be serious and understand how complexe this problematic is, it just piss me off.

Edited by oehaut, 12 December 2010 - 10:18 PM.

[oehaut]

High protein intakes affect GFR and put a heavier load on the kidneys. This is shown all of the time in lab testing and studies. High protein also contributes to much higher homocysteine levels which contributes to heart disease. Also proven. Homocysteine robs the body of B6 when the body eliminates it. None of this is desirable. I think everyone can agree on this much.

The verdict is generally the lower the better as far as protein goes as long as your needs are being met nutritionally.

I bet your friend (bodybuilder) has a worse GFR than the average person. All bodybuilders do. Bodybuilding is very unhealthy sport. Repeated injuries, long term joint damage and heart/kidney issues are common for long term bodybuilders. Weightlifters dont face as many of these issues unless they are trying to eat and train like bodybuilders.

Not that I disagree with everything that you said, but in the healthy, there is no scientific evidence that higher protein diet are deleterious to the kidney.

[Ace of Zardoz]

I'm laughing at the antiprotein stuff. Especially posting research on kidney patients.

That was only one point of several. So I will assume you either didnt read it all through all my posts or you just chose to nitpick a minor point.

The study right under that was done on normal healthy people as were the previous studies done in healthy patients. Dont strawman it.

[Ace of Zardoz]

High protein intakes affect GFR and put a heavier load on the kidneys. This is shown all of the time in lab testing and studies. High protein also contributes to much higher homocysteine levels which contributes to heart disease. Also proven. Homocysteine robs the body of B6 when the body eliminates it. None of this is desirable. I think everyone can agree on this much.

The verdict is generally the lower the better as far as protein goes as long as your needs are being met nutritionally.

I bet your friend (bodybuilder) has a worse GFR than the average person. All bodybuilders do. Bodybuilding is very unhealthy sport. Repeated injuries, long term joint damage and heart/kidney issues are common for long term bodybuilders. Weightlifters dont face as many of these issues unless they are trying to eat and train like bodybuilders.

Not that I disagree with everything that you said, but in the healthy, there is no scientific evidence that higher protein diet are deleterious to the kidney.

Its a gray area at best. It may not directly destroy your kidneys short term but it does put a heavier strain on the kidneys which may contribute to overall development of kidney disease over the long term. In animal models, over time higher protein led to a higher risk of developing kidney disease but like all matters of the human body its a complex mixture of factors and I believe through my research over the years that higher protein can definitely contribute to it as one of many factors. Extra strain on any organ is never beneficial but you're correct in that it doesnt mean all individuals will develop kidney disease. GFR rates are increased however with higher protein intakes and bodybuilders especially (as well as most on high protein diets) will have their GFR values come back as abnormal. Its a common issue with blood testing GFR in that sort of situation.

Higher protein diets increase blood pressure within the structures of the kidney itself straining the vessels and structures within. In the same manner think of what high blood pressure does to the heart. It has a similar effect to the structures of the kidney over time with a higher protein diet. I dont think there is enough quality research to say that it doesnt affect healthy individuals health wise.

Even in the studies done that say that it doesnt hurt healthy individuals, it does reduce many of the subjects kidney function. This is not desirable at all. Reduced kidney function can lead to a wealth of health issues.

The other issue is that many have early kidney disease due to poor diet or other factors and have no clue anything is wrong yet. A high protein diet will shorten their kidney's lifespan and potentially their overall lifespan. Even in one study done by Eric Knight at Brigham showed that one in four subjects suffered from reduced kidney function despite no outward symptoms from a higher protein diet. The problems developed in one in four people at just 1.3 grams protein per kg of weight while many diets and individuals in the real world consume double this commonly in some sports and even more than double by far.

I just dont think it is advisable, safe or healthy to consume high protein diets. I expect the research on this to change drastically over the next decade or two just as it did with many other subjects in the field.

[oehaut]

Its a gray area at best. It may not directly destroy your kidneys short term but it does put a heavier strain on the kidneys which may contribute to overall development of kidney disease over the long term.

You realise that this is pure speculation from you part tho?

The longest study that I know of is this one

Protein intake and kidney function in humans: its effect on 'normal aging'.

I can't remember exactly the time frame but I think it was 10y+. Obviously the higher protein diet was not as high as some BB get, but there was no detrimental effect.

I just dont think it is advisable, safe or healthy to consume high protein diets. I expect the research on this to change drastically over the next decade or two just as it did with many other subjects in the field.

I agree still that very high protein diet are useless anyway for mass gain as it is mostly calories that matter once again, and that trough other effects they can be detrimental. Unfortunatly there is not enough data to speculate on their long-term effect on kidney function but it does not look like a problem.

Edited by oehaut, 12 December 2010 - 11:13 PM.

[Ace of Zardoz]

You realise that this is pure speculation from you part tho?

The longest study that I know of is this one

Protein intake and kidney function in humans: its effect on 'normal aging'.

I can't remember exactly the time frame but I think it was 10y+. Obviously the higher protein diet was not as high as some BB get, but there was no detrimental effect.

It is based on years of research and studies and I stand firm on this as many studies contraindict the study provided. Lets say this study is correct even. What are the benefits of reduced kidney function and higher methionine/homocysteine levels? None. High protein diets even if they dont contribute to kidney disease, do contribute to many other health issues including cardiovascular disease. I however disagree entirely with the notion that high protein diets are harmless based on my years of research and the studies Ive reviewed suggesting the opposite idea.

Many studies show that higher protein diets reduce kidney function and that subjects have a higher risk of heart and kidney disease on a higher protein diet. It may not directly cause it but my research suggests it is indeed a contributing factor and a strong risk factor. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I agree still that very high protein diet are useless anyway for mass gain as it is mostly calories that matter once again, and that trough other effects they can be detrimental. Unfortunatly there is not enough data to speculate on their long-term effect on kidney function but it does not look like a problem.

While higher protein does lead to slightly higher protein synthesis it is fairly useless and the cons outweight the pros greatly even in just the aspect of the homocysteine and methionine levels in an individual on such a diet alone. Kidney function isnt the only issue on a high protein diet actually whats even more concerning is the implications of a high protein diet on the heart. In one of the studies shown earlier, test animals on a 22% protein diet had 31% more heart disease and on a 51% protein diet had 37% more heart disease compared to animals on a 10% protein diet which only suffered 11% heart disease in the population compared to 42 and 48 percent respectively.

In the same study, on a 10, 22 and 51 percent diet, kidney disease occurred at rates of 38, 56 and 73% respectively.This showed an upward trend in kidney disease with higher and higher protein intake. MH Ross and GJ Bras conducted the series of studies that led to these results and conclusions.

[Sillewater]

....
It is based on years of research and studies and I stand firm on this as many studies contraindict the study provided. Lets say this study is correct even. What are the benefits of reduced kidney function and higher methionine/homocysteine levels? None. High protein diets even if they dont contribute to kidney disease, do contribute to many other health issues including cardiovascular disease. I however disagree entirely with the notion that high protein diets are harmless based on my years of research and the studies Ive reviewed suggesting the opposite idea.
...

Based on your experience could you put some numbers on high and low and adequate protein intake. In terms of kg of bodyweight.

[Ace of Zardoz]

....
It is based on years of research and studies and I stand firm on this as many studies contraindict the study provided. Lets say this study is correct even. What are the benefits of reduced kidney function and higher methionine/homocysteine levels? None. High protein diets even if they dont contribute to kidney disease, do contribute to many other health issues including cardiovascular disease. I however disagree entirely with the notion that high protein diets are harmless based on my years of research and the studies Ive reviewed suggesting the opposite idea.
...

Based on your experience could you put some numbers on high and low and adequate protein intake. In terms of kg of bodyweight.

Low protein and adequate to me are in the same category by low I mean compared to the average person or SAD. Low protein equates to 10 to 15 percent of calories as protein in an average weight maintaining diet erring closer to 10% . In terms of grams per lb, roughly 0.3 for women would be low/adequate for the average 150 lb woman ideal weight not overweight weights (common mistake) and roughly 0.3 to 0.35 for an average 180 lb man ideal weight. Per kg it would be 0.7 grams per kg for an average 180 lb man ideal weight and for a woman who weighs 150 lbs ideal weight it would be 0.6 grams per kg. I used these weights as they are standard average weights used for the general population for each gender. It equates to 56 grams for the average male and 40 grams for the average female of protein roughly as stated prior as being ideal. High protein technically would be 1.3 grams per kg or higher but I consider anything beyond what is need ie protein positive balance as excessive for the individuals needs. Slight excess isnt likely to do much harm but 50% higher or more are likely to do more harm than anything.

In my locale the average population far exceeds 1.3 grams per kg daily. Incidentally there is a high rate of the expected diseases consistent with this sort of pattern.

The more protein neutral in balance one remains the better.