|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 07 2012 22:45 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 21:58 ElizarTringov wrote:On October 28 2011 09:51 eshlow wrote:Ground breaking nutrition study telling us something most of us already knew: Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer? http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/75/abstractConclusions
We summarize our main findings from the literature regarding the role of dietary CHO
restriction in cancer development and outcome.
(i) Most, if not all, tumor cells have a high demand on glucose compared to benign
cells of the same tissue and conduct glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen (the
Warburg effect). In addition, many cancer cells express insulin receptors (IRs) and
show hyperactivation of the IGF1R-IR pathway. Evidence exists that chronically
elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF1 levels facilitate tumorigenesis and
worsen the outcome in cancer patients.
(ii) The involvement of the glucose-insulin axis may also explain the association of
the metabolic syndrome with an increased risk for several cancers. CHO restriction
has already been shown to exert favorable effects in patients with the metabolic
syndrome. Epidemiological and anthropological studies indicate that restricting
dietary CHOs could be beneficial in decreasing cancer risk.
(iii) Many cancer patients, in particular those with advanced stages of the disease,
exhibit altered whole-body metabolism marked by increased plasma levels of
inflammatory molecules, impaired glycogen synthesis, increased proteolysis and
increased fat utilization in muscle tissue, increased lipolysis in adipose tissue and
increased gluconeogenesis by the liver. High fat, low CHO diets aim at accounting
for these metabolic alterations. Studies conducted so far have shown that such
diets are safe and likely beneficial, in particular for advanced stage cancer patients.
(iv) CHO restriction mimics the metabolic state of calorie restriction or – in the case of
KDs – fasting. The beneficial effects of calorie restriction and fasting on cancer
risk and progression are well established. CHO restriction thus opens the
possibility to target the same underlying mechanisms without the side-effects of
hunger and weight loss.
(v) Some laboratory studies indicate a direct anti-tumor potential of ketone bodies.
During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor
effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical
studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered
clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic
option in oncology. If you know anyone with cancer, please please please persuade them to eat ketogenic diet. It can literally eradicate cancer in some cases, and at least help your body fight better against cancer thus increases survivability. Cool story but how come people following the Dr.Mcdougall diet, basically a low fat-high carb vegan diet, are cured not only of cancer but of numerous other diseases? http://drmcdougall.com/stars/star07_ruth-heidrich.htmlhttp://drmcdougall.com/star.html
Sigh. Okay.
That link I posted to nutrition and metabolism is an actual scientific journal and they were summarizing research.
If you would like to provide some research to support your argument I would consider it.
Though, any diet that eliminates refined carbohydrates will have a positive effect on cancer although not as strongly as ketogenic from the literature.
Not sure where you are trying to go with the protein study either. The needs of athletic populations are higher than what is stated there.
[/spoiler]
His diet is based on medical science. Lowering the sugar in your diet in an attempt to kill cancer cells doesn't make sense because your cells would die due to lack sugar before the cancer cells die, the body is extremely good at maintaining blood sugar levels regardless of diet. There is no reason for athletes to need any more protein, but athletes do need more calories.
|
On February 07 2012 23:30 ElizarTringov wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 07 2012 22:45 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 21:58 ElizarTringov wrote:On October 28 2011 09:51 eshlow wrote:Ground breaking nutrition study telling us something most of us already knew: Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer? http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/75/abstractConclusions
We summarize our main findings from the literature regarding the role of dietary CHO
restriction in cancer development and outcome.
(i) Most, if not all, tumor cells have a high demand on glucose compared to benign
cells of the same tissue and conduct glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen (the
Warburg effect). In addition, many cancer cells express insulin receptors (IRs) and
show hyperactivation of the IGF1R-IR pathway. Evidence exists that chronically
elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF1 levels facilitate tumorigenesis and
worsen the outcome in cancer patients.
(ii) The involvement of the glucose-insulin axis may also explain the association of
the metabolic syndrome with an increased risk for several cancers. CHO restriction
has already been shown to exert favorable effects in patients with the metabolic
syndrome. Epidemiological and anthropological studies indicate that restricting
dietary CHOs could be beneficial in decreasing cancer risk.
(iii) Many cancer patients, in particular those with advanced stages of the disease,
exhibit altered whole-body metabolism marked by increased plasma levels of
inflammatory molecules, impaired glycogen synthesis, increased proteolysis and
increased fat utilization in muscle tissue, increased lipolysis in adipose tissue and
increased gluconeogenesis by the liver. High fat, low CHO diets aim at accounting
for these metabolic alterations. Studies conducted so far have shown that such
diets are safe and likely beneficial, in particular for advanced stage cancer patients.
(iv) CHO restriction mimics the metabolic state of calorie restriction or – in the case of
KDs – fasting. The beneficial effects of calorie restriction and fasting on cancer
risk and progression are well established. CHO restriction thus opens the
possibility to target the same underlying mechanisms without the side-effects of
hunger and weight loss.
(v) Some laboratory studies indicate a direct anti-tumor potential of ketone bodies.
During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor
effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical
studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered
clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic
option in oncology. If you know anyone with cancer, please please please persuade them to eat ketogenic diet. It can literally eradicate cancer in some cases, and at least help your body fight better against cancer thus increases survivability. Cool story but how come people following the Dr.Mcdougall diet, basically a low fat-high carb vegan diet, are cured not only of cancer but of numerous other diseases? http://drmcdougall.com/stars/star07_ruth-heidrich.htmlhttp://drmcdougall.com/star.html Sigh. Okay. That link I posted to nutrition and metabolism is an actual scientific journal and they were summarizing research. If you would like to provide some research to support your argument I would consider it. Though, any diet that eliminates refined carbohydrates will have a positive effect on cancer although not as strongly as ketogenic from the literature. Not sure where you are trying to go with the protein study either. The needs of athletic populations are higher than what is stated there. His diet is based on medical science. Lowering the sugar in your diet in an attempt to kill cancer cells doesn't make sense because your cells would die due to lack sugar before the cancer cells die, the body is extremely good at maintaining blood sugar levels regardless of diet. There is no reason for athletes to need any more protein, but athletes do need more calories. [/spoiler]
Apparently you don't understand the science behind ketogenic diet.
The body has the capacity to produce some glucose in the liver from gluconeogenesis.
However, when carbs are cut underneath about 40-50g per day (and even 0 per day) the body will convert most of it's metabolism to triglycerides and induce ketosis which it can use ketone bodies for energy.
The body doesn't need to eat any carbohydrates a day to survive.
And, lol, yes athletes need more protein than non-athletes (for optimal performance, that is) because nitrogen balance increases when you regularly exercise.
See this articles with studies:
http://www.isagenixhealth.net/blog/2011/12/19/protein-requirements-for-athletes/
|
On February 08 2012 00:48 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 23:30 ElizarTringov wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 07 2012 22:45 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 21:58 ElizarTringov wrote:On October 28 2011 09:51 eshlow wrote:Ground breaking nutrition study telling us something most of us already knew: Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer? http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/75/abstractConclusions
We summarize our main findings from the literature regarding the role of dietary CHO
restriction in cancer development and outcome.
(i) Most, if not all, tumor cells have a high demand on glucose compared to benign
cells of the same tissue and conduct glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen (the
Warburg effect). In addition, many cancer cells express insulin receptors (IRs) and
show hyperactivation of the IGF1R-IR pathway. Evidence exists that chronically
elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF1 levels facilitate tumorigenesis and
worsen the outcome in cancer patients.
(ii) The involvement of the glucose-insulin axis may also explain the association of
the metabolic syndrome with an increased risk for several cancers. CHO restriction
has already been shown to exert favorable effects in patients with the metabolic
syndrome. Epidemiological and anthropological studies indicate that restricting
dietary CHOs could be beneficial in decreasing cancer risk.
(iii) Many cancer patients, in particular those with advanced stages of the disease,
exhibit altered whole-body metabolism marked by increased plasma levels of
inflammatory molecules, impaired glycogen synthesis, increased proteolysis and
increased fat utilization in muscle tissue, increased lipolysis in adipose tissue and
increased gluconeogenesis by the liver. High fat, low CHO diets aim at accounting
for these metabolic alterations. Studies conducted so far have shown that such
diets are safe and likely beneficial, in particular for advanced stage cancer patients.
(iv) CHO restriction mimics the metabolic state of calorie restriction or – in the case of
KDs – fasting. The beneficial effects of calorie restriction and fasting on cancer
risk and progression are well established. CHO restriction thus opens the
possibility to target the same underlying mechanisms without the side-effects of
hunger and weight loss.
(v) Some laboratory studies indicate a direct anti-tumor potential of ketone bodies.
During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor
effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical
studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered
clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic
option in oncology. If you know anyone with cancer, please please please persuade them to eat ketogenic diet. It can literally eradicate cancer in some cases, and at least help your body fight better against cancer thus increases survivability. Cool story but how come people following the Dr.Mcdougall diet, basically a low fat-high carb vegan diet, are cured not only of cancer but of numerous other diseases? http://drmcdougall.com/stars/star07_ruth-heidrich.htmlhttp://drmcdougall.com/star.html Sigh. Okay. That link I posted to nutrition and metabolism is an actual scientific journal and they were summarizing research. If you would like to provide some research to support your argument I would consider it. Though, any diet that eliminates refined carbohydrates will have a positive effect on cancer although not as strongly as ketogenic from the literature. Not sure where you are trying to go with the protein study either. The needs of athletic populations are higher than what is stated there. His diet is based on medical science. Lowering the sugar in your diet in an attempt to kill cancer cells doesn't make sense because your cells would die due to lack sugar before the cancer cells die, the body is extremely good at maintaining blood sugar levels regardless of diet. There is no reason for athletes to need any more protein, but athletes do need more calories. Apparently you don't understand the science behind ketogenic diet. The body has the capacity to produce some glucose in the liver from gluconeogenesis. However, when carbs are cut underneath about 40-50g per day (and even 0 per day) the body will convert most of it's metabolism to triglycerides and induce ketosis which it can use ketone bodies for energy. The body doesn't need to eat any carbohydrates a day to survive. And, lol, yes athletes need more protein than non-athletes (for optimal performance, that is) because nitrogen balance increases when you regularly exercise. See this articles with studies: http://www.isagenixhealth.net/blog/2011/12/19/protein-requirements-for-athletes/ [/spoiler]
I have a problem with the fact that there are no links to some of the citations I wanted to see. The ones I wanted to see were 6-8. Where it says :The first conclusion from a meta-analysis of this research is that athletes given the RDI of protein (0.8 grams per kg bodyweight per day) quickly go into negative nitrogen balance and lose both muscle and power (6-8).
Were these athletes also gives "first-class" protein like the ones that were given the higher amount of protein? It doesn't say. It doesn't make sense that athletes would need any more protein as athletes do not usually work longer than the regular 8 hour day construction worker. In "Slaying the Dragon" Michael Johnson(Olympic Sprinter) mentions working around 15 hours a week, compare that to people in third world countries who have to work 10-12 hour shift everyday and it simply doesn't make sense that they would need less protein. Remember the study I posted doesn't say that is the protein requirement for sedentary individuals, that is the requirement for 97.5% of healthy adult population. Second off how do we know that the only reason these athletes needed more protein is because they weren't getting enough carbs, since if you get more protein but don't get enough carbs, the body will turn the protein into carbs to supply its sugar needs. How do I know that these athletes are in fact succeeding IN SPITE of the fact that they eat alot of protein and not BECAUSE of it? Were the studies actually done on the exactly the same athletes, that is the same athletes are given the (.8) protein per kg and then later they are given 1.4 to 2.4 per kg, or were they done on two different groups of athletes? This would skew results because they would end up comparing 2 different sets of individuals.
|
So....
1. You're saying you can use a general population study and apply it to athletes... and,
2. We don't know if athletes were getting enough carbs, or proteins, or fats in general unless they state it in the study which I don't want to go look up at the moment. However, the same "criticisms" apply with your study.
|
On February 08 2012 22:01 eshlow wrote:
So....
1. You're saying you can use a general population study and apply it to athletes... and,
2. We don't know if athletes were getting enough carbs, or proteins, or fats in general unless they state it in the study which I don't want to go look up at the moment. However, the same "criticisms" apply with your study.
Thats cool but there is the problem with teamliquid forum members not being athletes. Just because you do 1 workout a day, that doesn't make an athlete all of a sudden. If you increase your calories according to the work you do, then you should automatically get all the protein you need(as long as its from whole food and not oil for example).
|
Advice on when/what to eat before/after a work out? Following Stronglifts 5x5 and cardio.
|
After workout i take simple carbs with a protein shake. Half an hour to an hour later i eat a big meal rice with lean fish or meat and vegetables.
|
I've been taking this fish oil supplement for awhile now and just went back to re-order when I got this popup:
California Prop 65 WARNING: Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity, are present in dietary supplements, nutritional food powders, juice beverages, grocery items (i.e. coffee, fried and baked goods) and other products sold at iHerb.
I don't remember seeing any warnings like this last time, but after some googling, it seems linked to a number of fish oil supplements after a semi-recent lawsuit. Any reason I should be worried about this and hold off on re-ordering? Or should I be looking at a different fish oil?
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 14:41 geno wrote:I've been taking this fish oil supplement for awhile now and just went back to re-order when I got this popup: Show nested quote +California Prop 65 WARNING: Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity, are present in dietary supplements, nutritional food powders, juice beverages, grocery items (i.e. coffee, fried and baked goods) and other products sold at iHerb. I don't remember seeing any warnings like this last time, but after some googling, it seems linked to a number of fish oil supplements after a semi-recent lawsuit. Any reason I should be worried about this and hold off on re-ordering? Or should I be looking at a different fish oil?
Any of the molecularly distilled fish oils are fine.
If you're worried the go-to is Carlson's as far as fish oil quality goes. Last I read they have their stuff tested every 6 months or something? Although I'm pretty sure a lot of companies do that too...
|
woot i bought a little metal steamer
![[image loading]](http://images.surlatable.com/surlatable/images/en_US/local/products/detail/481366.jpg)
faster than boiling, softer, tastier too
i hope there is some fibre preserved coz i think it might be a bit too soft this time !!
|
Some guy in one of my maths lectures thinks milk has oestrogen in it and will make you more feminine, grow moobs etc. I called bullshit, and I'm right aren't I? Surely that just gets digested.
|
On March 07 2012 01:55 Deadeight wrote:
Some guy in one of my maths lectures thinks milk has oestrogen in it and will make you more feminine, grow moobs etc. I called bullshit, and I'm right aren't I? Surely that just gets digested.
estrogen, I don't think so.
It does have some small amounts of bovine growth hormone though which I don't think is a big deal but people hate it. (From factory farmed cows at least...)
If you get raw milk from grass fed cows it doesn't have that stuff in it
|
just spent an hour on iherb browsing for vitamin D and fish oil. I wanted to order and apparently they don't accept paypal 
What's the second best site to order from? (in Europe preferably; to save on shipping and import taxes)
|
On March 09 2012 15:01 Seth_ wrote:just spent an hour on iherb browsing for vitamin D and fish oil. I wanted to order and apparently they don't accept paypal What's the second best site to order from? (in Europe preferably; to save on shipping and import taxes)
Not sure about that actually.... may be a better question for the TL H&F main thread as there's many Europeans who read that who may be able to give you a better idea
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Can someone who is smarter than me commend on this study?
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287
Abstract:
Background Red meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, its relationship with mortality remains uncertain.
Methods We prospectively observed 37 698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2008) and 83 644 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1980-2008) who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years.
Results We documented 23 926 deaths (including 5910 CVD and 9464 cancer deaths) during 2.96 million person-years of follow-up. After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. The corresponding HRs (95% CIs) were 1.18 (1.13-1.23) and 1.21 (1.13-1.31) for CVD mortality and 1.10 (1.06-1.14) and 1.16 (1.09-1.23) for cancer mortality. We estimated that substitutions of 1 serving per day of other foods (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains) for 1 serving per day of red meat were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk. We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.
Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.
|
apparently i read the same news as zatic. i'm very interested in hearing some qualified comments about this study, because german media is all over this "red meat consumption is associated with an increased mortality risk"-study.
|
I'm feeling really damn tired most of the time, which for someone with no sleep issues is a little weird. I figured it might be puberty (I'm 18), but it might be my diet. I think it has too few carbs and fat, and too much protein. Could anybody make a guess?
Breakfast: 6 eggs, 1 bell pepper 1 tomatoe, 50grams of smoked salmon. On workout days I also have four small slices of bacon.
Lunch: 700ml %2 milk + 1\2 cup of oats + 2 scoops of whey + 1 balanan. Double the amount on workout days.
Dinner: 500grams~ of chicken breast/700grams of lean fish + a broccoli/250grams of green beans.
I don't think I'm undereating. I think it's a lack of veggies/fruit. I'm super strict and virtually never deviate from this. Any suggestions? I haven't really changed this set-up in the three-four months.
|
On March 14 2012 02:07 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:
I'm feeling really damn tired most of the time, which for someone with no sleep issues is a little weird. I figured it might be puberty (I'm 18), but it might be my diet. I think it has too few carbs and fat, and too much protein. Could anybody make a guess?
Breakfast: 6 eggs, 1 bell pepper 1 tomatoe, 50grams of smoked salmon. On workout days I also have four small slices of bacon.
Lunch: 700ml %2 milk + 1\2 cup of oats + 2 scoops of whey + 1 balanan. Double the amount on workout days.
Dinner: 500grams~ of chicken breast/700grams of lean fish + a broccoli/250grams of green beans.
I don't think I'm undereating. I think it's a lack of veggies/fruit. I'm super strict and virtually never deviate from this. Any suggestions? I haven't really changed this set-up in the three-four months.
You don't have anything in there that straight up gives you carbs. Throw in potatoes or brown rice man. You're just eating pure protein atm lol.
|
On March 14 2012 05:42 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:07 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:
I'm feeling really damn tired most of the time, which for someone with no sleep issues is a little weird. I figured it might be puberty (I'm 18), but it might be my diet. I think it has too few carbs and fat, and too much protein. Could anybody make a guess?
Breakfast: 6 eggs, 1 bell pepper 1 tomatoe, 50grams of smoked salmon. On workout days I also have four small slices of bacon.
Lunch: 700ml %2 milk + 1\2 cup of oats + 2 scoops of whey + 1 balanan. Double the amount on workout days.
Dinner: 500grams~ of chicken breast/700grams of lean fish + a broccoli/250grams of green beans.
I don't think I'm undereating. I think it's a lack of veggies/fruit. I'm super strict and virtually never deviate from this. Any suggestions? I haven't really changed this set-up in the three-four months. You don't have anything in there that straight up gives you carbs. Throw in potatoes or brown rice man. You're just eating pure protein atm lol.
Pretty sure oats have a lot of carbs. Do you take vitamin D? vitamin D deficiencies can lead to general fatigue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
