Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Thu, Aug-08-13, 16:54
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser

I seriously doubt that resistant starch is cancer promoting, understand that's not the point I'm making. But if its protective effect is due to inhibition of a high-glucose environment which these cells were never intended to be in, which seems at least plausible, it seems reasonable to question whether the benefits of butyric acid from fermentation will be as important to coloncytes if glucose appearance in the blood is markedly reduced in a ketogenic diet.


Not sure how that translates to real life scenario. There should never be much glucose in the large intestine as it's all digested in the small intestine, but it will be present in the blood of everyone, regardless of diet within a certain band. But that is a good observation, one I hadn't thought about before.

Maybe the answer lies in here: http://cancerpreventionresearch.aac.../4/11/1920.full

Quote:
Adding resistant starch to the diet profoundly altered protein and carbohydrate fermentation products in feces in a manner that can be interpreted as constituting a more favorable luminal environment. The addition of resistant starch to high protein diets reduced fecal pH, lowered production of phenols and ammonia, and increased fecal acetate, propionate, and butyrate concentrations. These changes may have certain benefits in relation to CRC risk. A low pH is considered to be associated with a reduced risk from CRC (39), whereas butyrate changes the metabolic environment in the lumen to promote a normal cellular phenotype (28). The addition of resistant starch to a high protein diet has been previously shown to reduce the formation of certain metabolites of protein fermentation (7). This is most likely a result of the bacteria favoring carbohydrate metabolism over protein when carbohydrate is readily available in the colon


(CRC means colorectal cancer)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Thu, Aug-08-13, 17:52
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Glucose will be present in the bloodstream--but whether/how much of it will be taken up will depend on hormones, maybe presence of ketones, etc. Blood glucose doesn't measure how much glucose is being taken up by various cells. The brain for example can be running almost entirely off glucose for an entire day, with only minor fluctuations to blood glucose.

You might find this study interesting;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700149/

I posted it on another thread recently, and it seems relevant. Something the gut bacteria are up to has a profound influence on glucose/ketone metabolism.


Quote:
This is the only study I could find addressing differences in gut bacteria on a ketogenic diet vs something with more fermentable carbohydrate. Good luck to anyone trying to figure out its relevance to what almost any of us here eat. The ketogenic diet was 5 percent protein, 95 percent calories as fat. The ketogenic diet does change the gut bacteria--but the change looks nothing like the change in animals switched to a high-fat, low-fiber but not low-carbohydrate diet.

It's a pretty interesting study, anyways. Apparently, germ-free mice don't do fasting ketosis very well, so they fail to switch away from glucose metabolism in the heart during a fast. Obvious relevance to their resilience against diet-induced obesity and diabetes in this glucose-wasting. Their heart mass ends up undersized. They manage to do ketosis on the ketogenic diet, though--and this protects the heart against the shrinkage.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Thu, Aug-08-13, 19:02
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

The claim that colonocytes _must_ get their energy from the colon as butyrate is obviously false. If that's the only benefit of RS, we can ignore it. A secondary benefit of RS could be the reduction of digestible carbs in the colon, which could otherwise end up glycated to form AGEs and do some damage. We might as well not eat RS in the first place. These are the two main benefits I see, but one is false, the other is moot. If there are other benefits, let's hear them. If there's the argument to feed gut flora - from which the only benefits I could extract are false and moot - that's a dead end as well. If there's the argument of PH, I'd like to hear it but to me that's also moot since PH is only important for stuff in the bloodstream and inside cells, or during digestion which isn't happening much anymore when stuff gets to the colon. Water is re-absorbed by the colon, and the colon is regularly filled and then emptied of all matter, which means PH inside the colon fluctuates as a rule, so the colon must be built to withstand those PH fluctuations. Any other argument I didn't think of?
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Thu, Aug-08-13, 20:37
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Any other argument I didn't think of?

Lots! I've heard them all.

1. For butyrate--eat butter.
2. People with a sterile gut will lose weight since there is no gut flora to harvest energy--so a sterile gut must be better.
3. Gut bacteria change so fast there is no reason to attempt manipulating them.
4. No one knows what a perfect gut profile looks like, so it's all speculation.
5. If RS is simply a fermentable fiber, just eat plant fiber from non-carby sources.

Then there's the whole blog from Dr. Eades on RS: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...sistant-starch/

In my opinion--none of the arguments hold weight and I think it is clear from the scientific/medical literature that RS is an important component of our requirement for dietary fiber.

Since nearly the entire population of America incidentally ingests 3-5g of RS per day eating the SAD along with 15-20g of fiber and not everybody gets colon cancer or has gut problems, it's safe to say that RS ingestion over the average of 3-5g is not absolutely required. However, since the US has one of--or maybe the--highest rates of colon cancer and gut dysbiosis, even after years of government harping for us to get 'more fiber', that maybe targeting RS in therapeutic ranges of 20-40g/day will be protective of colon problems, leaky gut, auto-immune conditions, and metabolic syndrome problems that are all said to be a function of gut microbes.

The Australian Paradox is where I'm going with this: http://whysci.org.au/getting-to-the...ralian-paradox/

Quote:
Australians eat more fibre than many other westerners but bowel cancer remains the second most common cancer in both Australian men and women. This is a paradox, because nutritionists agree that fibre fights bowel cancer and Australians eat a lot of it.

We need to eat a wider variety of fibre, according to current research. We’re doing a great job of eating roughage like wheat bran which promotes bowel regularity. What we need to eat more of is fermentable fibres, such as resistant starch.

Our research shows that eating resistant starch leads to positive changes in the bowel and could protect against the genetic damage implicated in bowel cancer.

Resistant starch promotes gut health by feeding the ‘good bacteria’ that live in our large bowel. These bacteria are sometimes called our microbiome. They can use resistant starch as food because it resists digestion in our small intestine, and moves on to the large bowel.

When the good bacteria in the large bowel ferment resistant starch, they make short chain fatty acids. One of these, called butyrate, supplies energy to the cells lining the large intestine (colonocytes), promoting their well being.


So, yes, RS may be much ado about nothing, but it's relatively easy to get and is shown to be protective of the colon and also shown to provide an environment friendly to beneficial gut microbes.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Thu, Aug-08-13, 22:16
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

For your amusement:

From the International Paleo Movement Group Facebook comments: “ALL STARCHES BECOME GLUCOSE.” (attributed to David Pendergrass)
Quote:

Wrong, resistant starch becomes fat (short-chain fatty acids – see “Short-chain fatty acids and human colonic function: roles of resistant starch and nonstarch polysaccharides,” link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and other research), not glucose.

Resistant starch was likely also consumed by Paleolithic peoples via raw, and after the advent of cooking, briefly-cooked, tubers and legumes, such as the wild African tubers, legume tubers and groundnuts that some African semi-tribal peoples continue to eat to this day. RS is more Paleo than the allegedly “Paleo” demonizers of all starch. If they bothered to read the research, they would know this (see Sex Differences in Food Preferences of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers, link to epjournal.net and “Early Humans Skipped Fruit, Went For Nuts [and legumes, roots, insects and meat],” link to news.discovery.com).

As Paul Jaminet said, his Perfect Health Diet that includes certain starchy foods is more Paleo than “Paleo” (at least the most common conception of it). Heck, even the Inuit traditionally ate wild “Eskimo potatoes” (often raw) and even Loren Cordain allows people following his approach to eat tubers who are active and not trying to lose weight, and Boyd Eaton allows both tubers and legumes. Stefan Lindeberg has studied people who thrive on a tuber-rich diet (The Kitava Study, link to staffanlindeberg.com). Unfortunately, since the days when these early pioneers were most influential, an extreme anti-starch and often anti-carb fringe has formed. In contrast, even Jimmy Moore at times acknowledges that some people thrive on Kitavan-type diets rich in starchy foods.

I’m LC myself, yet resistant starch so far appears to have lowered my fasting, random and postprandial blood glucoses and I appear to handle it better than fruits (though I do eat some fruits too). Haven’t noticed any GI benefits yet, though.
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Fri, Aug-09-13, 06:09
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I think all Australia shows is that fiber wont fix a bad diet. I doubt that resistant starch would either. Might make marginal improvements. A big problem with fiber is that people just went around adding it to whatever they were eating, and what they were eating wasn't good. Doesn't matter how much bran you add to a muffin, it's still going to be an un-iced cupcake.

For all I said about not knowing where prudence lies--does adding resistant starch to a ketogenic diet make things better or worse? and all that--I think it's probably worth a shot if a person wants to experiment. My point there was just that we have very little information about the effects of resistant starch on gut bacteria in that context. Not knowing--there's as much risk in not trying it as in trying it. My main concern would be if people whose metabolism really can't handle glucose were to go too heavy on regular starchy foods, just for the resistant starch that comes with them.
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Fri, Aug-09-13, 09:55
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
I think all Australia shows is that fiber wont fix a bad diet. I doubt that resistant starch would either. Might make marginal improvements. A big problem with fiber is that people just went around adding it to whatever they were eating, and what they were eating wasn't good. Doesn't matter how much bran you add to a muffin, it's still going to be an un-iced cupcake.


I agree. AND, they are going about RS in the wrong way, their plan is to add it to all baked goods in the form of Hi-Maize and Barley-Max, two 'specially bred' forms with higher amounts of RS than would be found in real foods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
For all I said about not knowing where prudence lies--does adding resistant starch to a ketogenic diet make things better or worse? and all that--I think it's probably worth a shot if a person wants to experiment. My point there was just that we have very little information about the effects of resistant starch on gut bacteria in that context. Not knowing--there's as much risk in not trying it as in trying it.



This sums up my feelings exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. I was led to RS through a link to the Hi-Maize website. I read it and said 'BullSh--!" That was almost the end for me, but I followed the citations and links and found out there have been hundreds and hundreds of studies done on the gut modulating and metabolic effects of adding RS in the range of 20-40g/day to a standard diet. I think it would be very easy to talk yourself into believing that RS is not needed by anyone in any amount, but read through 10 or 12 research papers or theses and you will see common themes of insulin sensitivity, colonic environment, increased beneficial bacteria, etc...

I have to ask myself two questions:
1. Why has so much research been done?
2. Why haven't we heard about this?

The answers are, I believe:
1. So much research has been done because RS produces verifiable, easily testable, and repeatable health benefits and there has been a mad scramble to try to commercialize and make money from RS since the 90's.
2. It's so easy to get RS from regular foods in therapeutic ranges that commercialization is nearly impossible--the only way anyone has found to make money is to breed grain with high levels of RS. Hi-Maize' makers, National Starch, used to be the world's leading supplier in HFCS. I guess they need a new market for all their corn since HFCS flew out of vogue.

If they could invent an RS supplement that only required 1 pill, it would fly off the shelves. Drug companies have actually tried this approach (http://www.pinnaclepharmacist.com/s...health-booster/) This formula contains 1g of RS...hardly enough to do anything.

I find RS an intriguing subject. I don't have all the answers, and on a real-food, low carb/ketogenic platform, prebiotics may be of little concern. But if anyone who reads this wants to increase their RS intake for any of the reported benefits, it can easily be had without eating grain-based products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
My main concern would be if people whose metabolism really can't handle glucose were to go too heavy on regular starchy foods, just for the resistant starch that comes with them.


This is actually part of my soap-box speech. RS can be had with minimal carb load. Up until now, all of the advice on RS (see: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/resi...bs-fight-cancer for example) revolves around pasta, potato salad, and beans. Going that route would require massive amounts of carbs to get a fraction of 20 grams. Resistant starch can be found in a nearly pure form in potato starch, banana flour, and tapioca flour, and in high amounts in green bananas. The only hitch is they must be eaten cold, such as in smoothies or mixed with yogurt or the like. Green bananas must be eaten as they are--not cooked like Dr. Oz says.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 11:21
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...70619173537.htm

A few years old (2007), but still...

Quote:
June 20, 2007 — Scientists at Aberdeen’s Rowett Research Institute have shown that a very low carbohydrate weight-loss diet results in a four-fold reduction in the numbers of certain types of bacteria in the gut of obese men.

This is a significant finding because these gut bacteria produce a substance called butyrate, which has been shown to be important for keeping the gut healthy including helping to prevent colorectal cancer. The study raises questions about the impact of the prolonged use of very low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets on gut health.

Very low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets (such as the so-called ‘Atkins-type diets) are popular with people struggling to lose weight and are used in some weight-loss clinics. Nutritionists have raised concerns about the low fruit and vegetable content of such diets as these contain nutrients that help protect against a number of diseases and cancers within the body. Less attention has been paid to the consequences of the low carbohydrate intake on the bacteria within the gut and how this might alter the release of either beneficial or harmful compounds from the food.

In this study, 19 healthy, obese men were given three diets containing different levels of carbohydrate (high, medium and low). Two of the diets also contained a high proportion of protein, as this is known to help reduce appetite and is used in a number of diets that help produce weight loss. Indeed, the volunteers lost similar amounts of weight and body fat on these two diets. Stool samples were analysed for the amount and type of bacteria, and for butyrate.

“The changes in butyrate production that we observed in this study are the largest ever reported in a human dietary trial. The results provide strong evidence that butyrate production is largely determined by the content of a particular type of carbohydrate in the diet that the bacteria in our guts can utilise,” said Professor Harry Flint who led the research at the Rowett Institute.

“We can’t be sure from this study about the impact of butyrate production on gut health, but there has been quite a lot of work done which shows that butyrate stops cancer cells from growing, and so helps prevent colorectal cancer.

“If low carbohydrate diets are to be consumed for long periods of time, it may be important to ensure that there is enough of the right sort of carbohydrate in the diet which can be used by the bacteria to produce compounds such as butyrate, which are beneficial for human health. This means making sure you continue to eat plenty of sources of fibre – such as fruit and vegetables,” said Professor Harry Flint.

What is butyrate?

Butyrate is what is known as a short chain fatty acid, and is produced in the gut when the bacteria ferment the carbohydrate present in food. It can be used by the bacteria as a source of energy and also is used by the cells which line the gut wall. Studies have shown that butyrate can prevent cancer cells in the gut from continuing to grow and so reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

The composition of the three diets was as follows:

Normal (maintenance) diet: 13% protein, 52% carbohydrate, 35% fat, as calories;

Medium carbohydrate diet: 30% protein, 35% carbohydrate, 35% fat. as calories

Low carbohydrate diet: 30% protein, 4% carbohydrate, 66% fat, as calories.


And this is my point--exactly. A low carb diet, with virtually no fiber, may help you control hunger and lose weight, but it is done at the expense of gut flora, and the fat they produce--kind of ironic, huh?

This cycle can be broken, and you can remain in ketosis if you desire by eating potato or tapioca starch.
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 12:02
joel381's Avatar
joel381 joel381 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,022
 
Plan: Keto IF
Stats: 275/242.8/192 Male 72
BF:
Progress: 39%
Location: Michigan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akman
And this is my point--exactly. A low carb diet, with virtually no fiber, may help you control hunger and lose weight, but it is done at the expense of gut flora, and the fat they produce--kind of ironic, huh?

This cycle can be broken, and you can remain in ketosis if you desire by eating potato or tapioca starch.


Have checked out many of your posts on other boards and see that you tried several methods to get the RS intake up. Can really see why the ready to go potato starch was so attractive and very low cost. Have been having some raw potato myself, figured it can't hurt. Yesterday I made myself drink a raw potato shake from the blender, oh the horror, it was truely vile. I beleive it made me stronger, however 1 was plenty...

Have a good day
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 12:34
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
“We can’t be sure from this study about the impact of butyrate production on gut health, but there has been quite a lot of work done which shows that butyrate stops cancer cells from growing, and so helps prevent colorectal cancer.

So that's the hypothesis. Nothing to do with autophagy of healthy cells due to lack of butyrate. The "butyrate stops cancer cells from growing", that's done in vitro. The "helps prevent colorectal cancer [presumably in vivo]", that's purely hypothetical. And the "We can't be sure...", that's absolutely true. They can't. In fact, they don't know. They don't know if RS helps prevent colorectal cancer. But they'd very much like it if we believed it did, so we'd become their test subjects in self-reported experiments to find out. You know, a bit like what's been happening in the last 40 years with the saturated fat hypothesis.

In a comment on Richard Feinman's blog, I mentioned that ketones regulate their own metabolism, and he added that this is done with the TCA cycle. Butyrate is not a ketone, but if a ketone can do it, then it's possible that other substrates can do it as well. What does butyrate do to cancer cells to make them stop growing? Does it shut down anaerobic oxydation? This way, butyrate has priority, and makes the cancer cell behave like a normal cell instead. Just a hypothesis, of course, but I'm trying to understand what's going on so we don't have to rely on gut-produced butyrate, which we obviously can do since those cells obviously have access to the bloodstream.

What's the cause of colorectal cancer? It's not the lack of butyrate. Butyrate only stops cancer cells from growing, thereby implying that the prevention is done for existing cancer. If there's no cancer, butyrate loses its value. Butyrate's value is ex post facto.

Is colorectal cancer glucose-dependent? Then don't eat carbs. Is butyrate essential to stop cancer cells from growing, or are there other molecules that can do it too? Doesn't matter, butyrate can be obtained from the bloodstream, so any other cancer-fighting stuff can be obtained from there too. Is this all about just butyrate and RS? Doubtful. Dr Richard Feinman's work on insulin signaling says cancer is much more sensitive to insulin, therefore dietary carbs. And his work is done in vivo, no need to hypothesize about it. We know for a fact that a low-carb diet has a direct effect on cancer growth.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=447278
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=448500

So, between a hypothesis and a fact, I'll take the fact every time.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 13:05
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
So that's the hypothesis. Nothing to do with autophagy of healthy cells due to lack of butyrate. The "butyrate stops cancer cells from growing", that's done in vitro. The "helps prevent colorectal cancer [presumably in vivo]", that's purely hypothetical. And the "We can't be sure...", that's absolutely true. They can't. In fact, they don't know. They don't know if RS helps prevent colorectal cancer. But they'd very much like it if we believed it did, so we'd become their test subjects in self-reported experiments to find out. You know, a bit like what's been happening in the last 40 years with the saturated fat hypothesis.

In a comment on Richard Feinman's blog, I mentioned that ketones regulate their own metabolism, and he added that this is done with the TCA cycle. Butyrate is not a ketone, but if a ketone can do it, then it's possible that other substrates can do it as well. What does butyrate do to cancer cells to make them stop growing? Does it shut down anaerobic oxydation? This way, butyrate has priority, and makes the cancer cell behave like a normal cell instead. Just a hypothesis, of course, but I'm trying to understand what's going on so we don't have to rely on gut-produced butyrate, which we obviously can do since those cells obviously have access to the bloodstream.

What's the cause of colorectal cancer? It's not the lack of butyrate. Butyrate only stops cancer cells from growing, thereby implying that the prevention is done for existing cancer. If there's no cancer, butyrate loses its value. Butyrate's value is ex post facto.

Is colorectal cancer glucose-dependent? Then don't eat carbs. Is butyrate essential to stop cancer cells from growing, or are there other molecules that can do it too? Doesn't matter, butyrate can be obtained from the bloodstream, so any other cancer-fighting stuff can be obtained from there too. Is this all about just butyrate and RS? Doubtful. Dr Richard Feinman's work on insulin signaling says cancer is much more sensitive to insulin, therefore dietary carbs. And his work is done in vivo, no need to hypothesize about it. We know for a fact that a low-carb diet has a direct effect on cancer growth.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=447278
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=448500

So, between a hypothesis and a fact, I'll take the fact every time.


What part of the study I linked was done in vivo? It was an N=19 with various diets and a direct measurement of gut microbes.

I'm not arguing the merits of of your hypothetical response, but my main point is, and always has been, that if you become interested in RS, it can be had at a cheap carb/calorie cost not involving Hi-Maize or loads of potatoes.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 13:08
akman akman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 55
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/175/190 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress: 130%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel381
Have checked out many of your posts on other boards and see that you tried several methods to get the RS intake up. Can really see why the ready to go potato starch was so attractive and very low cost. Have been having some raw potato myself, figured it can't hurt. Yesterday I made myself drink a raw potato shake from the blender, oh the horror, it was truely vile. I beleive it made me stronger, however 1 was plenty...

Have a good day


Raw potato smoothy, no thanks! I will eat a slice or two of raw potato as I'm cutting one up to cook, though.
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 13:15
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akman
It was an N=19 with various diets and a direct measurement of gut microbes.

Yes, that's correct. No cancer involved. FYI, "in vivo" means in live humans; "in vitro" means in a lab using tissue samples. As to your main point, why would anybody be interested in RS if not for its potential benefits? From the same study you cited, these potential benefits lie in cancer-prevention. From my analysis, these potential benefits are purely hypothetical.
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 13:20
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

And why would anybody be interested in RS if not for its hypothetical benefits for cancer prevention, when we already have hard facts that show low-carb has real benefits for cancer treatment? By the way, it's not prevention when it's after-the-fact, it's treatment, therapy.
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Tue, Aug-13-13, 13:24
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akman
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...70619173537.htm

A few years old (2007), but still...



And this is my point--exactly. A low carb diet, with virtually no fiber, may help you control hunger and lose weight, but it is done at the expense of gut flora, and the fat they produce--kind of ironic, huh?

This cycle can be broken, and you can remain in ketosis if you desire by eating potato or tapioca starch.

That was your argument. Basically, you said low-carb is good for stuff, but not for cancer-prevention. Well, I just gave you two sources which say low-carb has a direct effect on cancer, and this effect is due to insulin signaling primarily. Nothing to do with hunger nor weight loss, or gut flora nor butyrate.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:54.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.