- Liittynyt
- 20.1.2008
- Viestejä
- 2 644
Kun en näe koko tutkimusta, niin onko tässä kyse siis korrelaatiosta vai kausaliteetista? Ja miten muut korkeaan LDL:n usein yhdistyvät riskitekijät on siivottu pois?
Ketoosidieetti
- Keskustelun aloittaja Kylmä-Mika
- Aloitettu
-
- Tags
- ketoosi ketoosidieetti
10% ALENNUS KOODILLA PAKKOTOISTO
- Liittynyt
- 4.4.2003
- Viestejä
- 311
Uutta näyttöä siitä, että "Remnant kolesterolin" (VLDL/IDL) ja CVD:n välillä on assosiaatio, mutta ei LDL:n.
- Liittynyt
- 13.4.2005
- Viestejä
- 1 946
Kyllä tuosta LDL-CVD-riskistä on niin paljon näyttöä, että tämä ei paljon vaakakupissa paina.
Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel
Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel - PubMed (nih.gov)
- Liittynyt
- 31.1.2020
- Viestejä
- 3 004
- Liittynyt
- 17.8.2006
- Viestejä
- 14 999
- Ikä
- 33
Tää vuos on ollu kaikille rankka. Toisille enemmän, toisille vähemmän.
''When Anssi Manninen gets so triggered from me pointing that citing blogs & narrative review papers does not ‘prove’ energy balance is false that he emails your PhD advisor
''
View: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10114011121891230&set=a.10100308492091190
Kyse varmaan tästä: :D
2020 Dec 3
There is a new study by Ludwig et al (a researcher who has touted the superiority of low carb diets for a while now) that concluded low carb diets increase energy expenditure (EE) in long(er) term studies. Basically this study re-analyzed Kevin Hall’s original meta-analysis from 2017 but separated the studies into those less than 17 days or longer than 17 days
Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33274750/
This meta-analysis was well done from a statistics perspective, but there are major GAPING holes that aren't explained
First off, they chose to omit metabolic chamber data when doubly labeled water (DLW) data was available. Metabolic chamber is the gold standard for energy expenditure and is a DIRECT measurement of EE while DLW is merely a surrogate. So why would Ludwig choose to use DLW when a direct measurement was available? This would be like using skinfold data instead of MRI measurement of body fat even when both were available! It makes ZERO sense
Using DLW data biases the long term studies towards low carb (LC) superiority as DLW has NOT been validated for EE measurements during LC diets & has been consistently demonstrated to OVERESTIMATE energy expenditure compared to non-LC diets. This is likely due to the change in respiratory quotient (RQ) (ratio of O2/CO2) during low carb diets which causes greater than predicted increase in CO2. Since RQ is used in the calculation to determine EE from DLW, this causes an overestimation of EE when using DLW for low carb diet studies. Additionally, the increased loss of body water from LC diets also exacerbates this overestimation. This is likely why ONLY studies using DLW have shown significant increases in EE in favor of LC diets, whereas metabolic chamber studies have failed to show the same outcomes
Citations:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/403931v3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27385608/
Furthermore, there was evidence of biasing the data to favor LC diets. One of the studies (Rumpler et al.) in the meta-analysis was 35 days long but Ludwig chose data from the 28 day mark where the difference between low carb diets and low fat diets were the greatest (~200 kcal/d difference) however on day 35 there was no difference between the two diets. No good explaination was provided for why this timepoint was chosen compared to day 35. During days 28-35 the subjects were moved from a deficit to maintenance. This might make sense as to why Ludwig chose this time point if not for his own studies which were done at maintenance and included in the same meta-analysis. The choice to using the data from day 28 instead of day 35 does not make sense and is not adequately explained by the researchers
Citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1989409/
Further, in other studies (Abbot et al.) Ludwig claims that the low carb diet increased energy expenditure more than the control diet, but this is not supported by the data in the paper and the conclusions from the researchers themselves
Citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2305878/
Finally, there is NO data demonstrating increased fat loss from LC diets in these studies. In fact, every single study which 'demonstrated' increased EE (up to supposedly ~400 kcal/d difference) from LC diets did NOT show any significant increase in fat loss when compared to the low fat diet. In fact, several of the studies showed a slight (not statistically significant) advantage of fat loss to the low fat diets. If LC diets TRULY cause a REAL increase in EE, why don’t we observe increased fat loss? Because the increase is likely not real & simply due to a data artifact of DLW not being a viable measurement of EE for LC diets
In summary: the current meta-analysis does not support the researchers’ conclusions that LC diets increase EE. It merely supports the non-validity of DLW for use in assessing energy expenditure during LC diets
Shawn Baker
you called me out on this... I await your response and analysis
Layne Norton
2 t ·''When Anssi Manninen gets so triggered from me pointing that citing blogs & narrative review papers does not ‘prove’ energy balance is false that he emails your PhD advisor
View: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10114011121891230&set=a.10100308492091190
Kyse varmaan tästä: :D
2020 Dec 3
Do Lower-Carbohydrate Diets Increase Total Energy Expenditure? An Updated and Reanalyzed Meta-Analysis of 29 Controlled-Feeding Studies
David S Ludwig 1, Stephanie L Dickinson 2, Beate Henschel 2, Cara B Ebbeling 1, David B Allison 2Layne Norton
8 t ·There is a new study by Ludwig et al (a researcher who has touted the superiority of low carb diets for a while now) that concluded low carb diets increase energy expenditure (EE) in long(er) term studies. Basically this study re-analyzed Kevin Hall’s original meta-analysis from 2017 but separated the studies into those less than 17 days or longer than 17 days
Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33274750/
This meta-analysis was well done from a statistics perspective, but there are major GAPING holes that aren't explained
First off, they chose to omit metabolic chamber data when doubly labeled water (DLW) data was available. Metabolic chamber is the gold standard for energy expenditure and is a DIRECT measurement of EE while DLW is merely a surrogate. So why would Ludwig choose to use DLW when a direct measurement was available? This would be like using skinfold data instead of MRI measurement of body fat even when both were available! It makes ZERO sense
Using DLW data biases the long term studies towards low carb (LC) superiority as DLW has NOT been validated for EE measurements during LC diets & has been consistently demonstrated to OVERESTIMATE energy expenditure compared to non-LC diets. This is likely due to the change in respiratory quotient (RQ) (ratio of O2/CO2) during low carb diets which causes greater than predicted increase in CO2. Since RQ is used in the calculation to determine EE from DLW, this causes an overestimation of EE when using DLW for low carb diet studies. Additionally, the increased loss of body water from LC diets also exacerbates this overestimation. This is likely why ONLY studies using DLW have shown significant increases in EE in favor of LC diets, whereas metabolic chamber studies have failed to show the same outcomes
Citations:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/403931v3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27385608/
Furthermore, there was evidence of biasing the data to favor LC diets. One of the studies (Rumpler et al.) in the meta-analysis was 35 days long but Ludwig chose data from the 28 day mark where the difference between low carb diets and low fat diets were the greatest (~200 kcal/d difference) however on day 35 there was no difference between the two diets. No good explaination was provided for why this timepoint was chosen compared to day 35. During days 28-35 the subjects were moved from a deficit to maintenance. This might make sense as to why Ludwig chose this time point if not for his own studies which were done at maintenance and included in the same meta-analysis. The choice to using the data from day 28 instead of day 35 does not make sense and is not adequately explained by the researchers
Citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1989409/
Further, in other studies (Abbot et al.) Ludwig claims that the low carb diet increased energy expenditure more than the control diet, but this is not supported by the data in the paper and the conclusions from the researchers themselves
Citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2305878/
Finally, there is NO data demonstrating increased fat loss from LC diets in these studies. In fact, every single study which 'demonstrated' increased EE (up to supposedly ~400 kcal/d difference) from LC diets did NOT show any significant increase in fat loss when compared to the low fat diet. In fact, several of the studies showed a slight (not statistically significant) advantage of fat loss to the low fat diets. If LC diets TRULY cause a REAL increase in EE, why don’t we observe increased fat loss? Because the increase is likely not real & simply due to a data artifact of DLW not being a viable measurement of EE for LC diets
In summary: the current meta-analysis does not support the researchers’ conclusions that LC diets increase EE. It merely supports the non-validity of DLW for use in assessing energy expenditure during LC diets
Shawn Baker
you called me out on this... I await your response and analysis
- Liittynyt
- 23.4.2012
- Viestejä
- 1 702
2003-2018 Tehtiin 62 tutkimusta joissa verrattiin LF vs LC diettejä painonpudotuksessa. 31 näistä ei tuottanut tilastollisesti merkittäviä eroja, mutta 31 tuotti. Ja alla kuvakaappaus tutkimuksien sadosta. Tästä on siis helppo katsoa että kaikki tutkimukset joissa saatiin tilastollisesti merkittäviä tuloksia niin LC tuotti suuremman painonpudotuksen. Case closed!!
Data koostettu Home - Public Health Collaboration (phcuk.org) tilastoista.
Data koostettu Home - Public Health Collaboration (phcuk.org) tilastoista.
- Liittynyt
- 17.8.2006
- Viestejä
- 14 999
- Ikä
- 33
Pitää paikkaansa. Jos haluaa pudottaa painoa nopeasti kannattaa suosia vh:ta. Jos haluaa pudottaa rasvamassaaa sekä pitää lihasmassasta ja suorituskyvystä kii, kannattaa suosii semivähärasvasta semi korkee hiilaripitosta. Jos on tarpeeks lyhyt dietti, hiilariton/vhh toimii paremmin kyllä vs lfhc. MItä pidempi, sen vähemmän eroja. Painonpudotuksen osalta.
syitä mm. suoliston ruokamassa, vesimäärä jne.
- Liittynyt
- 31.1.2020
- Viestejä
- 3 004
- Liittynyt
- 23.4.2012
- Viestejä
- 1 702
Omakohtaiset kokemukset on että Keto/Carnivore dieetillä pystyy polttamaan rasvamassaa sekä kasvattamaan lihasmassaa suorituskyvyn kestäessä samalla tasolla kuin hiilihydraattivoittoisessa dieetissä. Dieetin kesto oli muutama kuukausi ja mittalaite inbody kehonkoostumusmittaus. Yksilöllisiä eroja varmasti on, pointti kuitenkin lienee se että toimivia keinoja on monia joista LCHF on yksi hyväksi todettu.
- Liittynyt
- 5.5.2004
- Viestejä
- 4 270
Tulipas eilen sikailtua.
Aamupalaks vedin rulla+riisikebabin, sitten pitkät päikkärit ja illalla ranut, nugetit ja burgeri.
Vielä pari suklaapatukkaa ja reilu 2L limua ruokien kera meni.
Vettä yritin vähän juoda runsaammin kun tuli sokeria tankattua.
2,3kg eilistä ylempi aamupaino, eli varmaan hävinnyt ku käy treeneissä ja paskalla.
Aamupalaks vedin rulla+riisikebabin, sitten pitkät päikkärit ja illalla ranut, nugetit ja burgeri.
Vielä pari suklaapatukkaa ja reilu 2L limua ruokien kera meni.
Vettä yritin vähän juoda runsaammin kun tuli sokeria tankattua.
2,3kg eilistä ylempi aamupaino, eli varmaan hävinnyt ku käy treeneissä ja paskalla.
- Liittynyt
- 13.4.2005
- Viestejä
- 1 946
Itsekin tykkään kyllä välillä vetää melkoisia mättöpäiviä, mutta normilimsoja en enää vedä silloinkaan.
En näe järkeä vetää jotain 1000 kaloria limsasta, kun se ei täytä ollenkaan, eikä maistukaan kaloritonta kummemmalta.
- Liittynyt
- 27.5.2013
- Viestejä
- 404
Nyt jumalauta...
- Liittynyt
- 13.4.2005
- Viestejä
- 1 946
Oma nöyrä mielipiteeni on, että Coke Zero pesee kaikki muut limsat paitsi normi-Cokiksen. Ja siinäkin ero on niin pieni, että Zerolla mennään, eikä haikailla yhtään sokerin perään.
- Liittynyt
- 20.1.2008
- Viestejä
- 2 644
Ihan samaa mieltä.Oma nöyrä mielipiteeni on, että Coke Zero pesee kaikki muut limsat paitsi normi-Cokiksen. Ja siinäkin ero on niin pieni, että Zerolla mennään, eikä haikailla yhtään sokerin perään.
Muuten tässä ketoketjussa lienee hyvä kertoa, että aion lipsahtaa hiilaripuolelle pariksi viikoksi. Olen leiponut mummun reseptillä pipareita ja odottelen Suomi-kaupasta saapuvaksi vielä tänään paria kiloa erilaisia ruisleipiä... Mainintaa eivät varmaankaan ansainne ne muut ostokset (3kg Fazerin sinistä, 2kg hedelmäkaloja, 2kg Sirkusaakkosia ja kolmisen kiloa lakritsia). Kerron olostani sitten vähän myöhemmin joulun jälkeen.
- Liittynyt
- 17.8.2006
- Viestejä
- 14 999
- Ikä
- 33
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGy2O5gzGpU
ps kattokaa video, älkää provosootuko nimestä tai thumbnailista..
- Liittynyt
- 17.8.2006
- Viestejä
- 14 999
- Ikä
- 33
''Consumption of a very low carbohydrate diet with nutritional ketosis for 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes lowered levels of small LDL particles that are commonly increased in diabetic dyslipidemia and are a marker for heightened CVD risk. A corresponding increase in concentrations of larger LDL particles was responsible for higher levels of plasma LDL-C. The lack of increase in total LDL particles, ApoB, and in progression of CIMT, provide supporting evidence that this dietary intervention did not adversely affect risk of CVD.''
Impact of a 2-year trial of nutritional ketosis on indices of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with type 2 d…
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Impact of a 2-year trial of nutritional ketosis on indices of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with type 2 d…
Impact of a 2-year trial of nutritional ketosis on indices of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with type 2 diabetes - PubMed
Consumption of a very low carbohydrate diet with nutritional ketosis for 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes lowered levels of small LDL particles that are commonly increased in diabetic dyslipidemia and are a marker for heightened CVD risk. A corresponding increase in concentrations of...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Liittynyt
- 17.8.2006
- Viestejä
- 14 999
- Ikä
- 33
Although scientific literature on the subject is scarce and there has tended to be a lack of scientific rigor, the studies reviewed confirmed the effectiveness of this diet in improving the cognitive symptomatology of the aforementioned diseases.
academic.oup.com
Nutrition Reviews, nuaa113, https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaa113
Published:
23 December 2020
Ketogenic diet and cognition in neurological diseases: a systematic review
AbstractContext. In recent years, the ketogenic diet has gained special relevance as a possible therapeutic alternative to some neurological and chronic di
academic.oup.com
Ketogenic diet and cognition in neurological diseases: a systematic review
S Pavón, E Lázaro, O Martínez, I Amayra, J F López-Paz, P Caballero, M Al-Rashaida, P M Luna, M García, M Pérez ... Show moreNutrition Reviews, nuaa113, https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaa113
Published:
23 December 2020
- Liittynyt
- 31.1.2020
- Viestejä
- 3 004
- Liittynyt
- 5.5.2004
- Viestejä
- 4 270
Viikon mässäilin ite, 5kg nous aamupaino ja ekan ketopäivän jälkeen jämiä on +1kg.