Archive for the ‘Studies’ Category

Ketones and inflammation

Friday, June 5th, 2015

One of the reasons I like spending time in ketosis is that I notice much LESS inflammation in my body.  And I’ve noticed this consistently over the years.

A recent study I just saw suggests that ketones, specifically beta hydroxy butyrate, reduce inflammation.  Go figure.

Here’s a link to the abstract/study.




New Study AGAIN Shows Low Carb Diets Work

Tuesday, September 4th, 2012

Yet another study showing the efficacy of low carb diets.  I know, as many people do, that low carb simply works.

By reducing carbs which minimizes the insulin response, people will stop storing those carbs as more fat.  This latest study showed that people who ate a low carb diet not only lost weight but their health markers (cholesterol, blood pressure, c reactive protein, liver function, etc.) IMPROVED!!!

Most carbs in our society are empty calories anyay.  Corporate food companies have to ADD vitamins and minerals (aka ‘enriched’) to even make much of the carbs people eat ‘nutritious’.  If they didn’t, they’d have ZERO nutritional value.

Combine that with adding sugar and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) to virtually everything processed, then you have a recipe for signicant health problems.

Now with regards to this latest study showing low carb works, the one thing I find really interesting is the IMPROVEMENT in HDL (the so-called ‘Good’ cholesterol).  With all the hype and fear mongering about eating animal products / saturated fat and how eating a steak will cause a heart attack???  It’s rather ironic.

How is it that the ‘Good’ cholesterol IMPROVES on a low carb diet??  Cholesterol levels improve eating a low carb diet????  Good cholesterol improves eating eggs, bacon, steak, chicken, cheese??  Apparently so.

Cancer and Sausage?

Saturday, January 14th, 2012

In yet another over-hyped study, researchers are trying to suggest a link between sausage and pancreatic cancer.  Now, this is somewhat interesting because they are saying that eating sausage everyday MIGHT increase your risk of pancreatic cancer by 0.3%.  That ain’t much.  Certainly not worth all the media hype.

But if you don’t read the article and just look at the headlines, then you don’t get to see that that’s a very small increase in risk, if the study is even accurate.

Interestingly enough, the author of the study suggested that it may be nitrites in the sausage and other processed meats.  And ironically, our low carb website has ALWAYS advocated the use of PRESERVATIVE-FREE meats and products.  That’s what I eat and will continue to eat.

Also, I am not sure how they can reduce that study down to the active ingredient being sausage.  Most people that i know eat sausage with pancakes (and lots of syrup) or french toast or biscuits or any number of other high carb foods.  I just don’t see how it’s possible that they can suggest that sausage is the problem. How do we know it’s not a combination issue, like sausage & sugar.  Or whatever.

I’m still going to eat bacon and sausage and I’m gonna enjoy the heck out of it too.  Life is a terminal disease and is far too short not to enjoy it.

Cancer loves carbs?

Saturday, August 6th, 2011

In a recent study, researchers at the BC Cancer Agency were studying the effect of diet on cancer.  They found that simply reducing carbohydrates helped slow down the growth rate of cancer in mice.

The suggested intake of carbs was set at 15% for the low carb group.  So based on a 2,000 calorie diet, that’d be about 300 calories of carbs or about 75 grams of carbs per day.   For a 1,500 calorie per day diet, that equals out to roughly 50 – 60 grams of carbs per day.

The researchers also suggested that the increase in protein (60% of the diet) could help the immune system function better when compared to a higher carb/lower protein diet.  Ironically, the mice eating the Western diet (55% carbs) gained weight and had a higher incidence of cancer.

Even at 15% carbs for the day, that’s still plenty of carbs.  I have eaten less than 20 grams of carbs per day for a couple of months and personally noticed numerous health benefits.

The study also suggested that reducing carbs also helped increase the effectiveness of anti-caner drugs and the ever popular anti-inflammatory drug Celebrex.  I have commented in other posts that I thought a low carb diet even seemed to increase the effect of coffee (a natural drug).

Recently, I can’t help but to wonder if eating a low carb diet helps eliminate food allergies and consequently reduces systemic chronic inflammation caused by those allergies and just might ultimately help boost or even normalize the body’s immune system.  Just a thought of my own.


Low fat and diabetes

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

In a recent study, over 8 weeks, it was suggested that reducing fat could help decrease the risk for type 2 diabetes more so than reducing carbs for 69 overweight people.

They apparently compared a low carb diet to a low fat diet.  I guess they were suggesting that by reducing fat intake, you can still enjoy being fat and not increase your risk of type 2 diabetes.

The problem is that the low carb numbers in this study were set at 43% of daily carb intake?  So on a 2,000 calorie diet, 43% of the carb intake would equate to about 215 grams of carbs by my math?  And that’s supposed to be low carb?

How about under 100 grams of carbs?  Or maybe under 60 grams of carbs? That’s what I call low carb.  200 grams of carbs per day is NOT low carb at all.

“At eight weeks, the group on the lower-fat diet had significantly higher insulin secretion and better glucose tolerance and tended to have higher insulin sensitivity,” the study’s lead author said.

Higher insulin secretion?  Now we know that one of insulins job is to move fat into fat cells.  Does it make any sense health-wise to eat a diet that actually increases insulin secretion?  Unless you were already diabetic and uncontrolled / medicated?  I suspect based on this study, a high carb, high fat diet would make for a really bad diet.  I would add that if you are eating a high carb diet, then you probably do want to cut the fat.

Of course, it would have been interesting to have kept the carb count the same and varied the protein intake.  Or kept the fat content the same and vary the protein intake.  Might have gotten similar results?  Who knows.

The real problem is jumping to conclusions on small amounts of data that could entirely erroneous and generalizing the results.

For example, there was a study showing that over a years time, people eating a high carb diet were happier than those on a low carb diet.  But the glaring thing about that was the total weight loss (not to mention 1 out 5 people were on anti-depressants).  They said the average weight loss was roughly the same in both groups over a year.  Now I know for a fact that if you’re obese and eat under 40 grams of carbs per day for a year, you’re going to lose more than 13 pounds.  So what’s that tell you?  These people weren’t following the diet for the entire year?  Probably the case.  Which would skew the results.

So give it another couple months and another study will come out showing something different.

And while I’m totally biased towards low carb, at some point, you have to find the diet right for your body, based on how you feel, how you look, how much energy, and mental clarity and focus it gives you.

Low fat dairy doesn’t help shed pounds

Sunday, May 1st, 2011

In a completely surprising study, switching to low fat dairy didn’t help kids lose weight.  Wow, what a shocker!  At least now we have some conclusive evidence that reducing fat doesn’t help kids lose weight.

All kidding aside, the only real surprise is that people/scientists still think reducing fat is helpful.  Obviously, I am a bit biased here.  And I’ve only lost 76 pounds by NOT reducing fat.  I reduced carbohydrates instead and guess what?  I lost weight.

The amusing thing to me is one of doctors was quoted as saying that these kids managed to reduce their saturated fat which will help them later in life with heart disease.  Now this is ironic to me.  Because I just read an earlier study that said there are NO STUDIES showing that eating saturated fat causes an increase in heart attacks or strokes.  There is NO evidence to conclude that.  Maybe they should be looking at inflammation levels, cortisol levels, etc.

So the old dogma is still going strong.  Saturated fat is bad, low fat is good (even though the studies aren’t showing that) and so on and so on.  Maybe one of these days, people will catch on.  I don’t know.

I can only gauge by what I know and have experience with.  I don’t buy low fat ANYTHING.  I don’t think fat is the problem.  I think excessive sugar consumption is a major issue.  I think artificial chemicals, growth hormones, antibiotics, mercury, pesticides, genetically modified food and product marketing are all major issues.

Reducing fat is just not a good idea.  Fat helps slow down digestion, which would help prevent serious blood sugar spikes and provides a highly concentrated source of energy.  Sometimes, I take saturated fat by the spoonful in the form of coconut oil.  Sometimes I even add flax oil (100% fat) to full fat cottage cheese.  And I’m still losing weight eating fat :)

Low carb and colon cancer?

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

In one of the sillier studies I’ve come across, this one was a published study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and was suggesting that a low carb diet could cause colon disease.

The problem with this study is that it was based on 17 subjects.  For 4 weeks?  And divided into 3 groups?  17 into 3 groups is 5.67 people per group.  5 people?

Please tell me that you’re not going to come up with ‘scientific’ data over 17 subjects and then generalize that it can cause colon cancer?  Wtf?  You can’t be serious?

But this is the problem with scientific studies and jumping to conclusions and then cyring ‘fire!’ without substantial evidence.  Simply because the headlines get attention.  And the majority of people probably don’t bother to read the details of the study.

This particular study would be even imply that they know without a shadow of a doubt what causes colon cancer.  That’d certainly be news to me.

The ironic part is even suggesting that an increase in hazardous metabolites in fecal material is somehow bad?  Perhaps the body is simply doing it’s job better, after all in this study they are analyzing what the body has effectively eliminated.

Personally, I think it’s totally irresponsible in the name of ‘clinical science’ to generalize and jump to conclusions about the harmful effects of eating a certain diet on such a small sample size and then distort the results.  It’s really fear mongering.

I think at best suggesting that increasing fiber might be a safer suggestion.  But that probably doesn’t sell as well though.

No link between saturated fat and heart attacks or stroke?

Monday, March 7th, 2011

In a recent study published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 21 previous studies were examined and researchers could not find a link between saturated fat intake and an increase in heart attacks or strokes.

The old dogma of ‘saturated fat is bad for you’ seems to becoming less and less on an issue.  And actually entirely false.  The researchers in this study could not any evidence to suggest that a diet in lower saturated fat resulted in fewer heart attacks or strokes.

Perhaps the real issue is not saturated fat at all.  The studies showing a Western diet is ‘bad’ for us is clearly evident, even for us non-scientists.  But perhaps the focus on saturated fat being the problem is just plain wrong.  What if it were really refined carbohydrates, sugar, corn syrup and the copious quantities in which they are added to all the processed foods Americans eat?

Personally I believe there is no one diet that fits all.  Every body is different.  I also believe that many of these studies that spread fear and doom & gloom based on ‘may cause’ or ‘potential link’ are not helpful at all.  I suspect the guilt induced by spreading concepts like ‘eating saturated fat is bad for you’ is far worse than eating the saturated fat.

For me, I feel better eating protein, fats (animal and vegetable) and lots of vegetables.  With little to no refined carbohydrates, no preservatives and little to no dairy.   Seems to be working for me and only took me decades to figure out what’s working for my body.  Better late than never I guess.

So what’s for breakfast?  This morning it’s a 3 egg omelet with sausage and spinach.

Study shows different response in tissues with high carb vs lower carb diets

Friday, March 4th, 2011

As I understand it, a recent study by Nutrition and Metabolism has showed that a lower carb diet had a different effect in mice than did a higher carb diet.  And more specifically in the area of adipose tissue (fat) and skeletal tissue (muscle).  After eating lower carb, there was a higher activity in skeletal muscles than when compared to eating a higher carb diet which elicited a greater response in the adipose tissue.

However, not sure too much can be inferred from this particular study.  Protein intake was 3x higher percentage wise in the lower carb group and one would expect to see a higher muscle response as such.  And the lower carb diet fed to mice was remarkably similar to the Zone diet (40/30/30).  This study used a 35/35/30 ratio.  The higher carb diet used a ratio of 60% carbs, 12% protein and 28% fat.

One interesting thing is the higher carb group did also have a larger insulin response.  This is significant because one of the fundamental premises of low carb diets is to minimize the insulin response consistently over time.  The theory being that insulin helps the body convert and store extra carbohydrates into fat.  And it would seem that in mice, at least, that there might just be something to that theory.

I’ve been playing around with my ratio and am testing it.  I suspect everybody has a different ratio and figuring out that ratio for yourself seems like a good life long endeavor.

ADHD and Diet

Friday, February 4th, 2011

Apparently a recent study published in the Lancet from the Netherlands was trying to make a correlation between what we eat and if that causes ADHD.

Interestingly enough, they did an elimination diet to the most ‘non-allergenic’ foods on 100 kids ages 4-8, which consisted of meat and vegetables.  Meat and vegetables?  Hmmmm…that sounds almost like a low carb diet?  In fact, that even sounds like my diet.

Except, they also added pears and wheat?  Wheat?  Non-allergenic?  Seriously? Even my dogs know that wheat is one of the most common allergens.  Not to mention highly processed and loaded with carbs and essentially empty calories, unless they add vitamins to the wheat product (which is practically a given in the US). 

Still though they saw a 64% improvement in behavior in children diagnosed wih ADHD.  And speculated that the others might not have followed the diet that closely.  Which is a problem with any non-supervised study.

I don’t think 100 kids is really statistically all that significant to be written about on CNN or published in a medical journal.  And the study also had no idea which foods were the ‘culprits’.  I guess the general gist of it was that allergens in food can cause erratic behavior.  Perhaps next they’ll look a little more closely at preservatives and artificial food coloring, perhaps those are the real culprits (besides a high sugar diet).