410 replies to this topic

[edward]

Yes thanks very cool

[edward]

more good stuff, not as exciting but still good:

Rejuvenation Research. December 1, 2007, 10(4): 435-440. doi:10.1089/rej.2007.0540.
http://www.lieberton...9/rej.2007.0540
Rejuvenation Research
Effect of Short-Term Ketogenic Diet on Redox Status of Human Blood

Rafal R. Nazarewicz, Wieslaw Ziolkowski, Patrick S. Vaccaro, Pedram Ghafourifar. Rejuvenation Research. December 1, 2007, 10(4): 435-440. doi:10.1089/rej.2007.0540.


Rafal R. Nazarewicz
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute, Institute of Mitochondrial Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Gdynia Maritime University, Division of Food and Nutrition Assessment, Gdynia, Poland.
Wieslaw Ziolkowski
Department of Bioenergetics and Physiology of Exercise, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.
Patrick S. Vaccaro
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute, Institute of Mitochondrial Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Pedram Ghafourifar
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute, Institute of Mitochondrial Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

The present study investigated the effect of a ketogenic diet on the blood redox status of healthy female subjects. Twenty healthy females with mean body mass index of 21.45 ± 2.05 kg/m2 were provided a low-carbohydrate (55 ± 6 g; 13% total energy), high-fat (138 ± 16 g; 74% total energy), calorie-restricted (−465 ± 115 kcal/d) diet. The followings were tested prior to and after 14 days consumption of the diet: Whole body, body weight and total body fat; blood, complete blood count, red blood cells, white blood cells, hemoglobin, and hematocrit; plasma, 3-β-hydroxybutyrate, total antioxidative status, and uric acid; red blood cells, total sulfhydryl content, malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase activity, and catalase activity. After 14 days, weight loss was significant whereas no changes were detected in body fat. No alterations were observed in blood count or morphology. 3-β-hydroxybutyrate, total antioxidative status, uric acid, and sulfhydryl content were significantly increased. There were no alterations in malondialdehyde, or superoxide dismutase or catalase activity. The present study demonstrates that 14 days of a ketogenic diet elevates blood antioxidative capacity and does not induce oxidative stress in healthy subjects.

Edited by edward, 19 May 2008 - 03:09 AM.

[edward]

These researchers imply that the mechanism by which CR extended the lives of their diseased rats was the adaptations to low glucose and higher levels of ketones (ie ketosis)

http://www3.intersci...474172/abstract

And these researchers are basically saying that ketogenic diets make the body think it is starving and thus causes the same adaptations as CR (i previously posted this article but I re-read it and it is even more impressive)

http://www.rsc.org/c...ne/05060702.asp

edit: reposted first link, it works now

Edited by edward, 19 May 2008 - 04:10 AM.

[FunkOdyssey]

Eric Ravussin from Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana has pinpointed a number of biomarkers for ageing that he says could start to answer the question of whether a ketogenic diet or FGF21 increases life span. 'This type of diet or this hormone could provide a surrogate for calorie restriction,' he suggested.

Wouldn't this be exciting, if we could obtain the benefits of CR while maintaining an athletic, attractive build. We might be able to have our cake (err, meat, eggs, veggies, and nuts I meant) and eat it too.

[edward]

Eric Ravussin from Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana has pinpointed a number of biomarkers for ageing that he says could start to answer the question of whether a ketogenic diet or FGF21 increases life span. 'This type of diet or this hormone could provide a surrogate for calorie restriction,' he suggested.

Wouldn't this be exciting, if we could obtain the benefits of CR while maintaining an athletic, attractive build. We might be able to have our cake (err, meat, eggs, veggies, and nuts I meant) and eat it too.

Yes my thoughts exactly, if only I had the time patience and animal husbandry skills to raise rats...

[stephen_b]

I'm interested in the prospect of cycling this diet. Can you get into ketosis by having a single very low carb day?

Stephen

[Shepard]

I'm interested in the prospect of cycling this diet. Can you get into ketosis by having a single very low carb day?

No, not really.

[stephen_b]

Well, I can always just pee on a ketostix to find out.



From today's wikipedia on ketosis:

If the diet is changed from a highly glycemic diet to a diet that does not substantially contribute to blood glucose, the body goes through a set of stages to enter ketosis. During the initial stages of this process the adult brain does not burn ketones, however the brain makes immediate use of this important substrate for lipid synthesis in the brain. After about 48 hours of this process, the brain starts burning ketones in order to more directly utilize the energy from the fat stores that are being depended upon, and to reserve the glucose only for its absolute needs, thus avoiding the depletion of the body's protein store in the muscles.

Speculation: maybe two days of very low carb eatingwould give some of the benefits of intermittent fasting.

Stephen

Edited by stephen_b, 21 May 2008 - 06:55 PM.

[Shepard]

The problem with ketostix is that they only measure the urine content. You could theoretically be in ketosis and have no measurable levels of urinary ketones.

[edward]

I'm interested in the prospect of cycling this diet. Can you get into ketosis by having a single very low carb day?

Stephen

"Technically" you could go into ketosis in one day eating ultra low carb combined with a full body workout that exhausted liver and muscle glycogen stores, this is a rough way to go and I dont think most people can actually do it properly. My recent experience with more of cyclical ketogenic diet is that I really don't recommend it unless you are a professional, competitive or very serious athlete the amount of exercise you need to do to deplete glycogen stores on a weekly basis to truly benefit is a bit much. A targeted ketogenic diet is a little more realistic, as in carbs only around workouts and even there we are talking limited to the needs of workoust. Now if you are a professional athlete some version of Lyle MacDonalds Cyclical Ketogenic diet or Ultimate diet 2.0 would probably be the most effective type of diet you could eat. I recommend you read those books this is a complicated topic and I can't educate you without writing a book's worth of posts.

One thing you have to understand is that until you are fully "fat adapted" that until your body is used to burning fatty acids, ketones and making its own glucose you will not be happy, you will be craving carbs and your energy level will be variable. In order to even start playing around with these types of diets you need to eat ultra low carb for at least 2 weeks, ideally for a month in order to get your body properly adapted. That is less than 30 grams of carbs a day for an entire month. Only then should you start playing around with carbs before and after workouts, carb ups glycogen depletion and overcompensation and all that to find out what works well for you.

Now you could cycle this diet in the manner I think you are contemplating but you will be miserable, you will probably lose fat and gain muscle but you will be miserable. A lot of recent bodybuilding publications talk about high carb days and low carb days and such which again will be effective at helping you lose fat gain muscle but most of these publications neglect to mention the necessity of a long period of time of ultra low carbs to adapt. Atkins called this phase Induction, Dr. Eades called it Intervention, whatever you call it you need to do it in order to get your body to be happy on low carb.

A word about ketostix. They are a good tool to reinforce the fact that you are in ketosis (when you know you have to be) but they are imprecise. You need to use them to check many times a day and if even once they show you are in ketosis then you probably have been the whole time... They measure excess ketones that make it into your urine. If for instance you just did some exercise, were in a stressful situation or did anything that required extra energy, likely you have burned up a lot of your ketones and there is no excess that needs to be eliminated in your urine . Also if you are consuming a lot of water (which you should be) your urine may be so dilute that the ketones are not registering. In conclusion, I wouldn't use them as a tool for cycling a ketogenic diet. Basically after you have been fat adapted, your carbohydrate intake, exercise volume (glycogen stores) will tell you whether you are in ketosis or not.

[stephen_b]

So it sounds like cycling this diet is not a great idea. (I'm not actively trying to loose weight, and hope to run a marathon this year. I'm still trying to figure out how to adapt my lower carb diet, about 100g/day, into a better diet for endurance.)

I found this study, which I'd expect many of you have seen (PMID: 15507148):

Ketogenic diets and physical performance.
Phinney SD.

6108 Boothbay Court, Elk Grove, CA 95758, United States of America. sdphtb@earthlink.net.

Impaired physical performance is a common but not obligate result of a low carbohydrate diet. Lessons from traditional Inuit culture indicate that time for adaptation, optimized sodium and potassium nutriture, and constraint of protein to 15-25 % of daily energy expenditure allow unimpaired endurance performance despite nutritional ketosis.

Stephen

[Shepard]

So it sounds like cycling this diet is not a great idea. (I'm not actively trying to loose weight, and hope to run a marathon this year. I'm still trying to figure out how to adapt my lower carb diet, about 100g/day, into a better diet for endurance.)

Cordain has a book on endurance exercise and the paleo diet. It's not very good, but it might help.

[liorrh]

Even in America though, where most people could afford to eat a paleo diet if they were so inclined, few people have the discipline to give up carbs.

What is the reason for the addiction to carbs? I always thought it was because the brain runs on glucose, and the brain gets what it wants, most of the time. So it is like a glucose addiction. I am pretty disciplined, but even I like like carbs.

Be sure to check mind and muscle magazine as I have submitted an article about Sweet Taste preference a week ago. If Justin would move his ass it should be up real soon.

Lior.

[liorrh]

aren't all the keto diet results good because they are compared to modern day diets? was there any keto vs. paleo diet research? also, good for fatties and good for lean people is very different.

If you think at it from an evolutionary point of view it seems like a good idea to go keto for a few times a year.

PS

regarding that inuit research, they are very genetically different than you and me. some populations were bred to be keto.

[edward]

aren't all the keto diet results good because they are compared to modern day diets? was there any keto vs. paleo diet research? also, good for fatties and good for lean people is very different.

If you think at it from an evolutionary point of view it seems like a good idea to go keto for a few times a year.

PS

regarding that inuit research, they are very genetically different than you and me. some populations were bred to be keto.

Evolutionarily, humans were in keto most of the time accept when they stumbled upon patches of berries, a tree of honey or when fruit trees were in season (at which point they gorged themselves on fruit sugar triggering the store the bodyfat for the winter genetic program)

I disagree, I have always been lean, never had above 10% bodyfat (yes actually measured periodically with hydrostatic weighing, calipers etc). I can get away with eating carbs and still be lean but I think I am less healthy and I have less energy when I do.

I beg to differ on the inuit are "very different genetically than you and me". Sorry I took biological anthropology classes and if you can successfully breed with another animal and produce offspring then you aren't genetically very different. I am sure you and I could have offspring with an Inuit, sorry there hasnt been enought time evolutionary for groups of humans around the planet to have genetically drifted that far appart, we are all pretty similar. (the fossil record... population bottleneck... mitochondrial DNA... early human migrations out of Africa etc etc all say this, not to mention the fact that the DNA within "races" differs more than between "races")

[liorrh]

aren't all the keto diet results good because they are compared to modern day diets? was there any keto vs. paleo diet research? also, good for fatties and good for lean people is very different.

If you think at it from an evolutionary point of view it seems like a good idea to go keto for a few times a year.

PS

regarding that inuit research, they are very genetically different than you and me. some populations were bred to be keto.

Evolutionarily, humans were in keto most of the time accept when they stumbled upon patches of berries, a tree of honey or when fruit trees were in season (at which point they gorged themselves on fruit sugar triggering the store the bodyfat for the winter genetic program)

I disagree, I have always been lean, never had above 10% bodyfat (yes actually measured periodically with hydrostatic weighing, calipers etc). I can get away with eating carbs and still be lean but I think I am less healthy and I have less energy when I do.

I beg to differ on the inuit are "very different genetically than you and me". Sorry I took biological anthropology classes and if you can successfully breed with another animal and produce offspring then you aren't genetically very different. I am sure you and I could have offspring with an Inuit, sorry there hasnt been enought time evolutionary for groups of humans around the planet to have genetically drifted that far appart, we are all pretty similar. (the fossil record... population bottleneck... mitochondrial DNA... early human migrations out of Africa etc etc all say this, not to mention the fact that the DNA within "races" differs more than between "races")

My wording may have been poor in previous post.

Still, disagree:
1. While humans ate a low carb diet that was not a ketogenic one. beef has the same glucose response and insulin AUC as pasta. look it up.
2. yeah the inuit are the same race... but they are genetically different from Caucasian people, not that much, but they are. they have to have vitamin D in food, so better on high fat diets,probably don't metabolize alcohol very well, etc. look at rats, some rats are genetically susceptible to be obese on high fat diet, other's aren't. the point, is, there is not enough data to weather the inuit example is relevant to all humanity.
3. you THINK you are less healthy on carbs? and scientific proof is where, prithee? I'm talking about (most of research (being) on obese individuals and you reply with an anecdote. I understand subjective feelings, but we need a little better proof.

Edited by liorrh, 31 May 2008 - 10:11 AM.

[edward]

aren't all the keto diet results good because they are compared to modern day diets? was there any keto vs. paleo diet research? also, good for fatties and good for lean people is very different.

If you think at it from an evolutionary point of view it seems like a good idea to go keto for a few times a year.

PS

regarding that inuit research, they are very genetically different than you and me. some populations were bred to be keto.

Evolutionarily, humans were in keto most of the time accept when they stumbled upon patches of berries, a tree of honey or when fruit trees were in season (at which point they gorged themselves on fruit sugar triggering the store the bodyfat for the winter genetic program)

I disagree, I have always been lean, never had above 10% bodyfat (yes actually measured periodically with hydrostatic weighing, calipers etc). I can get away with eating carbs and still be lean but I think I am less healthy and I have less energy when I do.

I beg to differ on the inuit are "very different genetically than you and me". Sorry I took biological anthropology classes and if you can successfully breed with another animal and produce offspring then you aren't genetically very different. I am sure you and I could have offspring with an Inuit, sorry there hasnt been enought time evolutionary for groups of humans around the planet to have genetically drifted that far appart, we are all pretty similar. (the fossil record... population bottleneck... mitochondrial DNA... early human migrations out of Africa etc etc all say this, not to mention the fact that the DNA within "races" differs more than between "races")

My wording may have been poor in previous post.

Still, disagree:
1. While humans ate a low carb diet that was not a ketogenic one. beef has the same glucose response and insulin AUC as pasta. look it up.
2. yeah the inuit are the same race... but they are genetically different from Caucasian people, not that much, but they are. they have to have vitamin D in food, so better on high fat diets,probably don't metabolize alcohol very well, etc. look at rats, some rats are genetically susceptible to be obese on high fat diet, other's aren't. the point, is, there is not enough data to weather the inuit example is relevant to all humanity.
3. you THINK you are less healthy on carbs? and scientific proof is where, prithee? I'm talking about (most of research (being) on obese individuals and you reply with an anecdote. I understand subjective feelings, but we need a little better proof.

1. This thread is not about simple low carb diets but ultra low carb diets that are ketogenic.
2. I disagree, stick an Inuit in the sun and they will produce vitamin D, its just because of the fact that they live in a harsh environment and are always covered up that they need dietary vitamin D.... besides what does vitamin D have to do with ketosis... Look at the evolutionary record by default just because of what food was available most of human and pre-human existence was spent in ketosis and there was not enough time in the last <10,000 years to evolve out of being well suited to that state
3. Proof: just read through this thread there are over a dozen articles on the positive biological changes associated with ketogenic diets, I am just noting as additional proof that I feel better on a ketogenic diet, if there wasnt other proof I might not continue but the proof is everywhere.

[VictorBjoerk]

Just a note,The sun is very strong in the arctic were the inuits may have evolved.And snow reflects 90% of incoming sunlight + no forests protecting them from rays so of course they would get enough Vitamin D from the sun (which never sets) during the summer...
Inuits have a 40% lower metabolism than typical caucasians and therefore they are more vulnerable to the mcdonalds popping up on greenland.

The life expectancy on greenland is 69 years and even lower among the inuits.I don't now if this is diet related however.

[edward]

Life expectancy among people nowadays is confounded by the fact that western culture is everywhere and as you said Mcdonald's popping is rampant even in Greenland, the modern day Inuits are no longer good examples of people on paleo keto diets.

[liorrh]

aren't all the keto diet results good because they are compared to modern day diets? was there any keto vs. paleo diet research? also, good for fatties and good for lean people is very different.

If you think at it from an evolutionary point of view it seems like a good idea to go keto for a few times a year.

PS

regarding that inuit research, they are very genetically different than you and me. some populations were bred to be keto.

Evolutionarily, humans were in keto most of the time accept when they stumbled upon patches of berries, a tree of honey or when fruit trees were in season (at which point they gorged themselves on fruit sugar triggering the store the bodyfat for the winter genetic program)

I disagree, I have always been lean, never had above 10% bodyfat (yes actually measured periodically with hydrostatic weighing, calipers etc). I can get away with eating carbs and still be lean but I think I am less healthy and I have less energy when I do.

I beg to differ on the inuit are "very different genetically than you and me". Sorry I took biological anthropology classes and if you can successfully breed with another animal and produce offspring then you aren't genetically very different. I am sure you and I could have offspring with an Inuit, sorry there hasnt been enought time evolutionary for groups of humans around the planet to have genetically drifted that far appart, we are all pretty similar. (the fossil record... population bottleneck... mitochondrial DNA... early human migrations out of Africa etc etc all say this, not to mention the fact that the DNA within "races" differs more than between "races")

My wording may have been poor in previous post.

Still, disagree:
1. While humans ate a low carb diet that was not a ketogenic one. beef has the same glucose response and insulin AUC as pasta. look it up.
2. yeah the inuit are the same race... but they are genetically different from Caucasian people, not that much, but they are. they have to have vitamin D in food, so better on high fat diets,probably don't metabolize alcohol very well, etc. look at rats, some rats are genetically susceptible to be obese on high fat diet, other's aren't. the point, is, there is not enough data to weather the inuit example is relevant to all humanity.
3. you THINK you are less healthy on carbs? and scientific proof is where, prithee? I'm talking about (most of research (being) on obese individuals and you reply with an anecdote. I understand subjective feelings, but we need a little better proof.

1. This thread is not about simple low carb diets but ultra low carb diets that are ketogenic.
2. I disagree, stick an Inuit in the sun and they will produce vitamin D, its just because of the fact that they live in a harsh environment and are always covered up that they need dietary vitamin D.... besides what does vitamin D have to do with ketosis... Look at the evolutionary record by default just because of what food was available most of human and pre-human existence was spent in ketosis and there was not enough time in the last <10,000 years to evolve out of being well suited to that state
3. Proof: just read through this thread there are over a dozen articles on the positive biological changes associated with ketogenic diets, I am just noting as additional proof that I feel better on a ketogenic diet, if there wasnt other proof I might not continue but the proof is everywhere.

1. I know, and paleo diets are not keto. that is a fault in your reasoning.
2. NO. go look it up. for instance:http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027&ct=1
3. I'm well versed in the subject. please show me a comparable research, on healthy humans and not fatty humans or obesity-prone rats that compares KD to paleo or zone diets for instance. you won't I've been through this discussion before. and the plural of anecdote is not fact.

Edited by liorrh, 01 June 2008 - 07:05 AM.

[Alpha-Frequency]

I would like to say that I have had nothing but incredible success with the Ketogenic approach. I find it interesting that throughout my childhood and teens I instinctively avoided carbohydrates because they made me fall asleep.
I have been warned "...but your brain NEEDS glucose to function."

Is this true?

Or does your brain REALLY need Omega 3's, choline etc..

As for the serotonin issue, I "personally" think that can be easily outfoxed with B6, Magnesium, Fish oil, Niacinamide, St. Johns and other serotonin enhancing supplements. (not to mention excercise, sleep etc..)

[VictorBjoerk]

Does anyone know any area of thw world where people have consumed paleolitic diets and remained healthy into old age and had a high life expectancy?

[frederickson]

aren't all the keto diet results good because they are compared to modern day diets? was there any keto vs. paleo diet research? also, good for fatties and good for lean people is very different.

If you think at it from an evolutionary point of view it seems like a good idea to go keto for a few times a year.

PS

regarding that inuit research, they are very genetically different than you and me. some populations were bred to be keto.

Evolutionarily, humans were in keto most of the time accept when they stumbled upon patches of berries, a tree of honey or when fruit trees were in season (at which point they gorged themselves on fruit sugar triggering the store the bodyfat for the winter genetic program)

I disagree, I have always been lean, never had above 10% bodyfat (yes actually measured periodically with hydrostatic weighing, calipers etc). I can get away with eating carbs and still be lean but I think I am less healthy and I have less energy when I do.

I beg to differ on the inuit are "very different genetically than you and me". Sorry I took biological anthropology classes and if you can successfully breed with another animal and produce offspring then you aren't genetically very different. I am sure you and I could have offspring with an Inuit, sorry there hasnt been enought time evolutionary for groups of humans around the planet to have genetically drifted that far appart, we are all pretty similar. (the fossil record... population bottleneck... mitochondrial DNA... early human migrations out of Africa etc etc all say this, not to mention the fact that the DNA within "races" differs more than between "races")

My wording may have been poor in previous post.

Still, disagree:
1. While humans ate a low carb diet that was not a ketogenic one. beef has the same glucose response and insulin AUC as pasta. look it up.
2. yeah the inuit are the same race... but they are genetically different from Caucasian people, not that much, but they are. they have to have vitamin D in food, so better on high fat diets,probably don't metabolize alcohol very well, etc. look at rats, some rats are genetically susceptible to be obese on high fat diet, other's aren't. the point, is, there is not enough data to weather the inuit example is relevant to all humanity.
3. you THINK you are less healthy on carbs? and scientific proof is where, prithee? I'm talking about (most of research (being) on obese individuals and you reply with an anecdote. I understand subjective feelings, but we need a little better proof.

1. This thread is not about simple low carb diets but ultra low carb diets that are ketogenic.
2. I disagree, stick an Inuit in the sun and they will produce vitamin D, its just because of the fact that they live in a harsh environment and are always covered up that they need dietary vitamin D.... besides what does vitamin D have to do with ketosis... Look at the evolutionary record by default just because of what food was available most of human and pre-human existence was spent in ketosis and there was not enough time in the last <10,000 years to evolve out of being well suited to that state
3. Proof: just read through this thread there are over a dozen articles on the positive biological changes associated with ketogenic diets, I am just noting as additional proof that I feel better on a ketogenic diet, if there wasnt other proof I might not continue but the proof is everywhere.

1. I know, and paleo diets are not keto. that is a fault in your reasoning.
2. NO. go look it up. for instance:http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027&ct=1
3. I'm well versed in the subject. please show me a comparable research, on healthy humans and not fatty humans or obesity-prone rats that compares KD to paleo or zone diets for instance. you won't I've been through this discussion before. and the plural of anecdote is not fact.

the experimental research that you demand is not fact either. especially when it comes to population based nutrition studies or diet trials. there simply are no FACTS as to which diets are better as it would be impossible to know how every individual would respond to each diet.

while limited, sometimes the personal accounts that you so readily dismiss are the only pieces evidence available.

[edward]

Liorrh,

Experimental research shows increased mitochondrial density and function, neuroprotective effects, nootropic effects, activation of genes possibly mimicking the effect of CR, improved resistance to stress low energy states and chemical insults, decreased brain cell death do to less glutamate toxicity etc etc. all these statments have references in this thread I am not going to take the time to go find them all again but they have been brought up and commented on.... So the evidence looks good.

Now what I want to see is what is not available, a comparison of CR (obviously balanced with all nutritional bases covered), IF (different schedules also balanced, nutritional bases covered), Ketogenic (balanced with all nutritional bases covered with a paleo menu and plenty of supplemental veggies and proper fatty acid ratios), etc..... in rats or preferably a higher mammal, of course a normal animal with not genetic predisposition to disease.... But this type of study isnt available.

[liorrh]

while limited, sometimes the personal accounts that you so readily dismiss are the only pieces evidence available.

whats heavily covered in research is that humans notoriously misreport food intake(Champagne et al 1998, De Lany et al 2002). As such I take all anecdotes except of the most OCD professional athletes/bodybuilders very skeptically.

Furthermore, in forums such as this one and M&M where people go on and off heavy hitting meds and supplements on a whim, the subjective effects of just the diet change are poorly differentiated.

So I would not call them evidence but hearsay at best, an anthropological artifact more indicative of the person's frame of reality than reality itself

[liorrh]

Liorrh,

Experimental research shows increased mitochondrial density and function, neuroprotective effects, nootropic effects, activation of genes possibly mimicking the effect of CR, improved resistance to stress low energy states and chemical insults, decreased brain cell death do to less glutamate toxicity etc etc.

increased compared to... WHAT? that's my point. increased compared to shitty western diets, or increased in morbidly obese/obesity prone animals.

While this may shed some light on what to do if you've gone over 35% BF or have an MC4R/CCK mutation, those mean generally fuck all for us lean, healthy individuals.

[edward]

Liorrh,

Experimental research shows increased mitochondrial density and function, neuroprotective effects, nootropic effects, activation of genes possibly mimicking the effect of CR, improved resistance to stress low energy states and chemical insults, decreased brain cell death do to less glutamate toxicity etc etc.

increased compared to... WHAT? that's my point. increased compared to shitty western diets, or increased in morbidly obese/obesity prone animals.

While this may shed some light on what to do if you've gone over 35% BF or have an MC4R/CCK mutation, those mean generally fuck all for us lean, healthy individuals.

Je$us freaking chri$?, read the articles referenced in this thread then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion

[frederickson]

while limited, sometimes the personal accounts that you so readily dismiss are the only pieces evidence available.

whats heavily covered in research is that humans notoriously misreport food intake(Champagne et al 1998, De Lany et al 2002). As such I take all anecdotes except of the most OCD professional athletes/bodybuilders very skeptically.

Furthermore, in forums such as this one and M&M where people go on and off heavy hitting meds and supplements on a whim, the subjective effects of just the diet change are poorly differentiated.

So I would not call them evidence but hearsay at best, an anthropological artifact more indicative of the person's frame of reality than reality itself

i certainly agree that relying upon dietary recall has limitations. but i think the point you are failing to take is that it is just as limited in most research studies!

food frequency questionnaires, 24 hour dietary recall, or whatever the mode of collection may be, has the same limitations as even the most carefully designed dietary studies. even if one is measuring some diet-related physiological outcome in serum (the gold standard) don't think for a second that anything that comes out of a study is universal FACT.

while there is the potential for confounding by meds/supplements as you pointed out, i take into consideration some of the carefully detailed effects of diets by more thorough posters. as i said in my other post, there is often little else to form any basis whatsoever.

Edited by frederickson, 03 June 2008 - 10:48 PM.

[Alpha-Frequency]

Bump.

This is a brilliant discussion and useful thread.