SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PastimesHeart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: ig8/30/2018 8:38:04 AM
2 Recommendations   of 36898
 
“Low-carb linked to dying young”?
August 24, 2018
By Dr. William Davis



It’s been a busy week with no shortage of dietary fiction being reported by the media. In addition to the coconut oil is “pure poison” nonsense that I responded to, there are now lots of confused conversations about the purported dangers of low-carb diets because of a study that purports to show that both low-carb and high-carb eating lead to increased mortality over 25 years. You’ve seen the attention-grabbing headlines: “Low-carb linked to dying young.” “Low-carb kills.”

The several points I made in the “coconut is pure poison” blog post are the very same ones that apply here. This study is yet another in a long line of similar studies from Dr. Walter Willett and colleagues. All the data that these people generate are observational, not experimental. Because the issues with this awful study are the very same as those that lead to false conclusions such as “red meat causes cancer,” I shall re-post my comments on the dangers of trying to draw any cause-effect conclusions from observational data but applied to the low-carb question:

Let me talk for a moment about observational studies. An observational study is typically conducted like this: I have you fill out a dietary questionnaire that asks you to recall what you ate for, say, the last 3 days.I then recontact you 5, 10, 20, or 25 years later and see what happened to you: healthy, heart attack, dead. Problem: filling out a questionnaire at one moment in time is a lousy way to assess diet, people change diets for a variety of reasons over the years—to lose weight, financial troubles, diet fads, etc.Another problem: confounding factors. If you say, for instance, that you are a vegetarian, it also means that you don’t drink much, don’t smoke, don’t engage in other high-risk behaviors, probably take nutritional supplements, eat more whole foods over processed foods. In other words, eating a certain way means that there are other behaviors attached to that way of eating; any effect on outcomes cannot be assumed to be due to vegetarianism per se, but to the entire collation of behaviors. There are other sources of bias in observational studies that muddy the results. Bottom line: Observational studies cannot establish cause-effect relationships; they can only suggest an hypothesis. To prove whether or not low-carb intake does or does not impact mortality cannot be based on questionnaires; a randomized prospective study in which people are randomly assigned to an eating style are compared. Unfortunately, unlike the studies with saturated fat in which people randomized to low-fat diets did not have less cardiovascular events, there are no long-term randomized clinical studies on low-carb eating.

Observational data is like having no data at all. Time after time, the conclusions drawn from observational studies (and falsely reported by study authors or the media as definitive conclusion) have fallen apart in prospective studies. My favorite example is Premarin, horse estrogens prescribed to women for years. Observational data suggested that Premarin (that looks and acts NOTHING like human estrogens) reduced breast cancer, reduced endometrial cancer, and reduced heart disease. This was responsible for making Premarin the most widely-prescribed drug in the world for about a decade.Then the prospective, randomized HERS and Women’s Health Initiative trials were conducted.Conclusion: Premarin INCREASED breast cancer, INCREASED endometrial cancer, INCREASED cardiovascular death, even accelerated dementia. And this has been the story over and over again: Conclusions drawn in observational studies have proven to be flat wrong about 4 times out of 5. This hasn’t stopped people like Frank Sacks and Walter Willett, through the observational Physicians’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study to, time and again, declare observational findings as fact. Unfortunately, even the USDA buys this observational fiction, incorporating the findings of observational studies in their dietary guidelines.

So the observational data reported in this study cannot be used to draw conclusions. It would be nice if we could refute the claims being made with randomized, prospective data, but there are none. However, there are abundant data that look at various biomarkers that demonstrate the metabolic advantages of low-carb eating. Among improved biomarkers are:

  • Reduced HbA1c, fasting glucose, insulin, reduced insulin resistance
  • Reduced triglycerides (due to lack of carbs/sugars to fuel liver de novo lipogenesis, i.e., conversion of sugars to triglycerides )
  • Reduction or elimination of small LDL particles
  • Reduced severity of postprandial (after-meal) lipoproteins (especially VLDL)
  • Reduced blood pressure
  • Weight loss including from visceral fat
  • Reduced inflammatory markers such as c-reactive protein, IL-2, TNF-alpha
  • Reversal of fatty liver
Low-fat diets, in comparison, are typically accompanied by no drop in blood sugar or insulin or an increase, a marked increase in triglycerides and small LDL particles that cause heart disease, and no reversal of fatty liver.

The only problem with low-carb diets come when carbs are cut to very low levels of about 20 grams per day and ketosis sets in. I’ve discussed this before: There is nothing wrong with being ketotic, as it is a normal and natural physiological adaptation. The problems come, however, when you stay in ketosis for a prolonged periods of months to years. Because you have eliminated all prebiotic fibers (since they come as mostly carb-rich foods like legumes), dysbiosis and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth sets in, followed by constipation, diverticular disease, and increased risk for colon cancer. The initial metabolic improvements that derive from reducing carb exposure reverse over time with a rise in blood sugar and insulin, rise in blood pressure, rise in triglycerides. We know all this with confidence as thousands of children have been maintained on ketogenic diets to suppress intractable grand mal seizures. In addition to the above, kids stop growing (suggesting that something is fundamentally wrong with the diet), have exceptional risk for kidney stones, and there are occasional instances of sudden cardiac death. This makes people in the ketogenic diet world angry, but there is simply no way to just dismiss these observations made over many decades.

But back to the “low-carb kills argument”: Ignore it. It is the same misleading and non-conclusive data along with plenty of other nonsense that comes from Willett, Sacks, et al, who deliver their hypotheses as conclusive scientific findings—which they are NOT. Be content and happy with the magnificent overall health, reflected by numerous biomarkers, that results when you banish all grains and sugars from the diet, do not restrict fat, and take efforts to cultivate bowel flora and address a handful of common nutritional deficiencies that derive from living a modern life (not from the diet).

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: ig who wrote (34108)8/30/2018 12:18:13 PM
From: RMP
   of 36898
 
Thanks for posting this. I completely agree.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Alan Smithee who wrote (34107)8/30/2018 2:53:17 PM
From: Neeka
   of 36898
 
My BP is regularly around 100/70 and I get light headed quite a lot. I've done on line searches, and still don't have a clue what's going on?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Neeka who wrote (34110)8/30/2018 3:17:23 PM
From: D. Long
   of 36898
 
Kristel has very low BP, too. Same thing.

Not much to do about it, I understand. Our GP told her to eat as much salt as she wants, in his very dry humor style.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: mel221 who wrote (34103)8/30/2018 3:19:21 PM
From: D. Long
   of 36898
 
I had to get off it. I couldn't even walk down the driveway without getting breathed.

Amlodopine has been better for me. No lightheadedness or fatigue.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: D. Long who wrote (34111)8/30/2018 3:37:49 PM
From: Neeka
   of 36898
 
My doc said the same thing. We just have to live with it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Neeka who wrote (34110)8/30/2018 5:44:49 PM
From: w0z
   of 36898
 
My BP is regularly around 100/70 and I get light headed quite a lot. I've done on line searches, and still don't have a clue what's going on?


I have naturally low blood pressure (no drugs). It's always been a minor problem, especially in hot weather if I squat down and then stand up too quickly. I've always speculated that with low BP, quickly standing increases flow downhill and decreases flow uphill (i.e. the brain). That's a simple minded speculation from an engineer, not a doctor. BTW this is why pilots wear a special suit that constricts the body during high-G maneuvers to prevent blackouts caused by blood draining from the brain.

Here's a medical explanation for the condition:

healthline.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: w0z who wrote (34114)8/30/2018 5:57:15 PM
From: Neeka
   of 36898
 
My dizzy spells can happen any time, and I really don't have a problem when standing up. The dizzy spellls usually occur while I'm sitting down.

I had 3-4 episodes of Vasovagal Syncope when I was younger. Usually while taking a shower. My son would faint at the sight of blood when he was really young, and had an episode several years ago and crashed through the glass shower door.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: RMP8/31/2018 12:14:26 AM
3 Recommendations   of 36898
 
Beware of “Skinny Fat”—a New Dementia Risk

For most people, losing muscle mass as they get older is as natural as going gray. But unlike the silver streak in your hair, reduced strength and muscle mass may signal a dangerous risk—especially if you’re carrying extra body fat.

Background: We’ve long known that loss of muscle mass (a condition known as sarcopenia) is bad for our health, increasing our risk for falls and a loss of physical independence. It’s also widely known that being overweight or obese sets us up to develop heart disease, diabetes and other chronic ailments.

When it comes to brain health, research has also shown that sarcopenia and obesity are independently linked to cognitive impairment. Exception: In people over age 70, extra body weight seems to protect against dementia, for reasons that aren’t fully understood.

With this evidence in hand, researchers wanted to learn how the combination of sarcopenia and obesity affects one’s risk for various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer disease.

To study this question, researchers took precise body measurements and performed a thorough cognitive assessment on 353 adults, with an average age of 69. The researchers then determined which of the participants had sarcopenia and were also obese based on their percentage of body fat mass—a condition known as sarcopenic obesity or “skinny fat.” Interestingly, the “skinny” term comes into play because people with sarcopenic obesity tend to look less overweight than those who are simply obese.

In analyzing the data, researchers had to contend with some tricky definitions that are used for both sarcopenia and obesity. Traditionally, sarcopenia has been defined as low muscle mass. Now, some experts also include low muscle function in the definition—as determined, for example, by grip strength. Obesity, too, has been defined various ways. The conventional definition is tied to body mass index (BMI), which is the ratio of a person’s weight-to-height…or it can be defined based on the percentage of body fat.

Study results: Adults who could be described as “skinny fat”—that is, they had sarcopenia, defined by the combination of low muscle mass and low muscle strength, along with a high percentage of body fat—were the most likely to have lower cognitive function. The combination of those features was more strongly linked to cognitive decline, followed by sarcopenia alone and then obesity alone.

Takeaway: Maintaining muscle strength while preventing excess body fat may help protect your cognitive ability as you get older.

If you want to build muscle strength, read here for simple ways to get started. It’s easier than you think!

Source: The study “Sarcopenic Obesity and Cognitive Performance” led by researchers at Florida Atlantic University Comprehensive Center for Brain Health in the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine in Boca Raton, Florida, and published in Clinical Interventions in Aging. Date: August 6, 2018 Publication: Bottom Line Health

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: RMP who wrote (34116)8/31/2018 5:52:19 AM
From: w0z
   of 36898
 
If you want to build muscle strength, read here for simple ways to get started. It’s easier than you think!


Thanks for posting that link! Very timely as I began an exercise program a couple of months ago to offset my age 73 related muscle loss...excellent, practical article.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10