Low carb - High Protein

As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It
is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.

I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
(even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).

I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
and often is higher than the one hour value.

Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
there something I'm missing?

--
Phil
T2, Australia
Diag: January 2007
D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:36:04 +0900, "Phil" <sebastion7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
>satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
>eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
>and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
>Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
>there something I'm missing?

You might be converting protein to carb quite efficiently - it's
supposed to be around a 50% conversion, but it seems to be far more
significant for some people than others.

Have you tried a low carb / medium protein / medium healthy fat diet?

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25

"Phil" <sebastion7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$5km1xj$wk5$1@news.upnaway.com...
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to
> work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right
> range. It is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear
> relationships between the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG
> readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after
> eating (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein
> for satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour
> after eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0
> mmol/L and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
> there something I'm missing?

My two hour is always higher but I have gastroparesis. I don't do low carb
but lower as in lower than what I used to eat. Makes it hard for me though
because I don't want to do higher protein nor do I want to do higher fat.
So I am just eating less food in general.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:36:04 +0900, "Phil"
<sebastion7@hotmail.com> wrote:

>As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
>on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It
>is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
>the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
>I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
>the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
>(even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
>I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
>satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
>eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
>and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
>Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
>there something I'm missing?

Hi Phil

There could be several reasons, not the least simply being
time. For some people things work quickly, for some of us
not as quick. It took me a while to get good 1hr numbers,
and I also had a period where I either had higher two-hour
or, more often, reactive lows at two or three hours. But I
kept at it, aiming to get the peaks lower whenever they
occurred. Over time I stabilised and my own peak is mainly
one hour now and two hours is a non-event.

With some exceptions.

If I eat a high-carb high-fat meal then that can still cause
me to peak later and longer. The pizza effect - but it
doesn't happen to me every time. Unprecictable. So I don't
do that very often.

Also, I started to creep up after about three years and I
chose to add metformin to my d&e. That changed the
post-prandials quite significantly in the evening and led to
quite a few changes in my menu.

I suppose the point of all that waffle is that you have to
keep doing that extra testing until things become
predictable but even then it can sneak up on you at times.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice

I replace the high spike carbs with fiber such as veggies and fruits that
dont raise my bg.

My protien intake is enought to keep me satisfied and recover from my
workouts.

I find it less desirable to follow a plan as it is to eat healthy , good
,tasty foods that keep me stable and keeps me withing a good
calorie/nutrition range.

If i had to pick a diet from say a book i would choose southbeach fr the
good fats..lots of fresh veggies etc..

KROM

"Phil" <sebastion7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$5km1xj$wk5$1@news.upnaway.com...
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to
> work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right
> range. It is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear
> relationships between the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG
> readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after
> eating (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein
> for satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour
> after eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0
> mmol/L and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
> there something I'm missing?
>
> --
> Phil
> T2, Australia
> Diag: January 2007
> D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%
>

Hi Phil,

I suspect what you are seeing is different food raises your glucose at
different speeds.

If you eat 30g of high GI carbs, your levels will spike and the
insulin action you have will try and bring it down. So you will
probably have a high 1hr and lower 2hr.

if you eat the same 30g of low GI carbs, your levels will not spike as
quick, your insulin will not spike and your levels will be on less of
a roller coaster. Chances may very well be 2hr will be higher than 1
hour.

My understanding is there are 2 phases of insulin action, and in us
T2s, the first phase becomes defective first. Therefore often a spike
will precipitate phase 2 and bring our levels down. If we overspike,
then there are other problems. high GI will precipitate the phase 2

Do you consider 6 after 2 hours that bad ? What are you after 3
hours.

I'm guessing you know all this already, but figured I'd give it a shot

Phil wrote:
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
> on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It
> is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
> the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
> (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
> satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
> eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
> and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
> there something I'm missing?
>
> --
> Phil
> T2, Australia
> Diag: January 2007
> D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%

Phil wrote:
>
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
> on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It
> is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
> the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
> (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
> satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
> eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
> and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
> there something I'm missing?

It is likely that you are not eating less, down to the right amount:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic... be blessed:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword

x-no-archive: yes

Phil wrote:
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
> on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It
> is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
> the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
> (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
> satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
> eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
> and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is
> there something I'm missing?
>

Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber.
Protein converts to glucose, too, slowly, at a rate of about 58%.
Instead of replacing the carbs you reduce with protein, try eating just
the amount of protein you need and adding fats from healthy sources, and
heaping on the colorful, high fiber, non starchy vegetables instead.

One tool that's helped me, over 10 years, to figure out what
macronutrient breakdown gives me the best results is the free software
at fitday.com.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> Phil wrote:
>> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets
>> find? Is there something I'm missing?
>
> Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber.

A "low carb diet" could be either. Or both.
Or neither. But Phil was more specific, with
"lower carb - higher protein".

Though perhaps there is something he's missing,
i.e., the existence of these alternatives.

Phil, if you've been listening to warnings about
the dangers of fat, most of them are B.S.

Some fats are good, some are bad, some are only bad
in large amounts.

--
Wes Groleau
"Would the prodigal have gone home if
the elder brother was running the farm?"
-- James Jordan

x-no-archive: yes

Wes Groleau wrote:

> A "low carb diet" could be either. Or both.
> Or neither. But Phil was more specific, with
> "lower carb - higher protein".

I suppose it could be, but by design, none of the low carb diet plans
are high protein, which is what Phil used in his subject header, you'll
note.

Susan

On Mar 1, 12:36*am, "Phil" <sebasti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
> on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. *It
> is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
> the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
> (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
> satiety. *But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
> eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
> and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? *Is
> there something I'm missing?
>
> --
> Phil
> T2, Australia
> Diag: *January 2007
> D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%

Hi Phil,

Everyone has given you some good ideas. I have one more to offer, and
it's not about what you eat, but about how to keep track of which
foods effect your BG. While it's true that some people can eat the
same exact meal and get different results on both occasions, a lot of
times we *think* we're eating the same basic meal because we're eating
the same amount of carbs, but your body is going to break down the
carbs from different foods at different rates. You can't rely just on
carb counting, you've got to tediously check each food. And yes,
sometimes it can be tricky. Using myself as an example, I can eat raw
carrots with no problems; but cooked ones spike me. Go figure.

So what I recommend is to start with a meal you know works for you,
say for example, grilled chicken, a green salad, green beans (these
foods probably won't spike you, but check to be sure). Then at your
next meal, do the chicken, the green salad, and corn. If you get a
spike, you can bet it's the corn. You see what I'm getting at. It's
tedious, but it works. It causes confusion to make too many changes
in the meal at once because then you're not sure what the culprit was
if you get a spike. Take lots of notes, and keep good records.
You'll get it figured out.


Best regards,
Michelle C., T2
diet & exercise

On Mar 1, 12:36�am, "Phil" <sebasti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
> on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. �It
> is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
> the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
> I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
> (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
> satiety. �But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
> eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
> and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? �Is
> there something I'm missing?
>
> --
> Phil
> T2, Australia
> Diag: �January 2007
> D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%

You are very new to this and there is a lot to figure out. It takes
some time and since you sound motivated you will no doubt find the
right successful formula that works for you. Work with a professional
to help you establish a good foundation upon which you will build a
long lifetime of health. I recommend that you consult with an
endocrinologist who specializes in diabetes who can be the leader of
your healthcare team and hook you up with the right supplemental
players for your particular needs. You might also want to check out
these two sites, but nothing is a substitute for live contact with a
professional doctor:

www.daibetes.org

www.joslin.org

Good luck.

Kurt

In addition to your dietary efforts, what are you doing in the "&E" part of
the equation?

Exercise is not only good in an immediate sense (many find a modest walk
shortly after a meal helps post-prandial bg quite a lot) but in an overall
sense in how your body adjusts in general.

I don't do post-meal exercise but I do do regular exercise (run or walk
several times a week). I also take some meds for the ppbg -- but I'm sure
it's not as much as if I didn't exercise the way I do. I am not a
low-carber.
bj

"Phil" <sebastion7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$5km1xj$wk5$1@news.upnaway.com...
> As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to
> work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right
> range. It is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear
> relationships between the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG
> readings.
>
> --
> Phil
> T2, Australia
> Diag: January 2007
> D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%
>

Susan Wrote:
> Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber.

Reply:
Some low-carb dies are high protein and some aren't.

In fact, the highly sucessfull (as regards BG and A1cs) low carb LoBAG
approach IS a high protein diet (30% of calories from protein)
See http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...full/53/9/2375.

What I find worrisome about this approach is the resulting increased
IGF-1 and possible relationship with increased cancer risk.

See: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/291/4/E786

Regards
Randy

x-no-archive: yes

randy@val.com wrote:
> Susan Wrote:
>
>>Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber.
>
>
> Reply:
> Some low-carb dies are high protein and some aren't.
>
> In fact, the highly sucessfull (as regards BG and A1cs) low carb LoBAG
> approach IS a high protein diet (30% of calories from protein)
> See http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...full/53/9/2375.

I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate.

>
> What I find worrisome about this approach is the resulting increased
> IGF-1 and possible relationship with increased cancer risk.
>

There is no proven or known risk from healthy vs. pathological causes of
elevated IGF1.

Susan

Susan Wrote:
> I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate.

You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the
professional world does.

Even the authors of the LoBag study refer to it as a HIGH Protein
diet.
See:http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...full/53/9/2375

Phil's question should be addressed in the context it was presented
and I'm sure by "high protein" he did not intend "your" definition but
how its used professionally (published studies, poll of
professionalls).

Susan Wrote:
> There is no proven or known risk from healthy vs. pathological causes of
> * elevated IGF1.

Reply:
Are you refering to your private definitions here or professional
usage?

The diet inquestion increased IGF-1 by 34% with a P <.006 so the
increase was caused by the diet.

If anyone would like to read more about IGF-1 and cancer to see if
there is any reason for concern here are some links:

http://www.cbcrp.org/research/PageGr...?grant_id=1575
http://cancer.ucsf.edu/u56/pilotprojects.php
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-...evelopment.htm
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...act/67/16/7923
http://www.google.com/search?source=...=&q=IGF+cancer

Randy




>

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:06:19 -0800 (PST), "randy@val.com"
<randy@val.com> wrote:

>Susan Wrote:
>> Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber.
>
>Reply:
>Some low-carb dies are high protein and some aren't.
>
>In fact, the highly sucessfull (as regards BG and A1cs) low carb LoBAG
>approach IS a high protein diet (30% of calories from protein)
>See http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...full/53/9/2375.
>
>What I find worrisome about this approach is the resulting increased
>IGF-1 and possible relationship with increased cancer risk.
>
>See: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/291/4/E786
>
>Regards
>Randy

I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've
read before. I could find no mention of risk of cancer or
carcinogens. Clarify please.

There is a note on the increase on IGF-I, (not IGF-1) but
the relationship between that and cancer is still tenuous at
best. As a dumb non-biochemist looking in it strikes me that
the relationship is about as clear as that for ingested
cholesterol and heart disease. Clear as mud.

Here is one of the more recent studies on that:
http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprin...l_1/S17?ck=nck
"Evidence for a link between IGF-I and cancer"

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:10:31 -0800 (PST), Kurt
<kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You might also want to check out
>these two sites, but nothing is a substitute for live contact with a
>professional doctor:
>
>www.daibetes.org

Interesting site Kurt. Try it, you'll see what I mean.
It works, and includes some really good snake-oil links.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice

x-no-archive: yes

randy@val.com wrote:
> Susan Wrote:
>
>>I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate.
>
>
> You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the
> professional world does.

So what? The majority of the professional world told women for 25 years
that HRT prevented stroke, dementia and heart disease and that SIDS
deaths were an inherited trait when it turned out they ran in families
because of homicidal mothers.

>
> Even the authors of the LoBag study refer to it as a HIGH Protein
> diet.

So what? I don't adopt opinions as fact.

Susan

On Mar 1, 11:10Â*am, Kurt <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:36�am, "Phil" <sebasti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work
> > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. �It
> > is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between
> > the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings.
>
> > I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even
> > the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating
> > (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal).
>
> > I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for
> > satiety. �But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after
> > eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L
> > and often is higher than the one hour value.
>
> > Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? �Is
> > there something I'm missing?
>
> > --
> > Phil
> > T2, Australia
> > Diag: �January 2007
> > D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7%
>
> You are very new to this and there is a lot to figure out. Â*It takes
> some time and since you sound motivated you will no doubt find the
> right successful formula that works for you. Â*Work with a professional
> to help you establish a good foundation upon which you will build a
> long lifetime of health. Â*I recommend that you consult with an
> endocrinologist who specializes in diabetes who can be the leader of
> your healthcare team and hook you up with the right supplemental
> players for your particular needs. Â*You might also want to check out
> these two sites, but nothing is a substitute for live contact with a
> professional doctor:
>
> www.daibetes.org
>
> www.joslin.org

Sorry for the typo on the first link. It's www.diabetes.org (the ADA
site)

Kurt

On Mar 1, 12:02�pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> In addition to your dietary efforts, what are you doing in the "&E" part of
> the equation?
>
> Exercise is not only good in an immediate sense (many find a modest walk
> shortly after a meal helps post-prandial bg quite a lot) but in an overall
> sense in how your body adjusts in general.
>
> I don't do post-meal exercise but I do do regular exercise (run or walk
> several times a week). I also take some meds for the ppbg -- but I'm sure
> it's not as much as if I didn't exercise the way I do. I am not a
> low-carber.

I second bj's recommendation here. Exercise is, IMO, as important as
what you eat. Thanks for posting this bj.

Kurt

Alan Wrote:
> I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've
> read before. I could find no mention of risk of cancer or
> carcinogens. Clarify please.
Reply:
Alan

It was quite clear in my post that I was refering to the increased
level of IGF-1(sorry it supposed to be Romain I) as a concern. If you
refer to the full paper(its available from the abstract) on page 789
table 1 you can see there is a 34% average increase in IGG-I.

Alan Wrote:
> There is a note on the increase on IGF-I, (not IGF-1) but
> the relationship between that and cancer is still tenuous at
> best. As a dumb non-biochemist looking in it strikes me that
> the relationship is about as clear as that for ingested
> cholesterol and heart disease. Clear as mud.
> Here is one of the more recent studies on that:http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprin...l_1/S17?ck=nck
> "Evidence for a link between IGF-I and cancer"

Reply:
Well Alan I wasn't going to call you dumb, but since you've already
admitted as much I must agree in this particular instance. ( I
acutally think your a smart, but biased guy)
The study you referenced totally supported my view. In fact the
authors state at the end of the paper:

************************************************** ****************************************
"This review has discussed the considerable evidence in
support of an important role for the GH/IGF-I axis in
the development and growth of many cancers."
************************************************** ****************************************

A complete understanding of the low level mechanisms might be lacking
and very complicated, but that has nothing to do with the considerable
evidence pointing to a connection. One doesn't have to know how
cirgaratte smoking causes cancer before he avoids smoking.

Once again I invite anyone that's interested in looking a quality
studies on this issue to check out these links:
http://cancer.ucsf.edu/u56/pilotprojects.php
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-...evelopment.htm
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...act/67/16/7923
http://www.google.com/search?source=...=&q=IGF+cancer

I'm not saying that the association of increased IGF-I is absolute but
there is enough data that makes this topic worthy of a conversation

Regards
Randy

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:09:38 -0800 (PST), "randy@val.com"
<randy@val.com> wrote:

>Alan Wrote:
>> I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've
>> read before. I could find no mention of risk of cancer or
>> carcinogens. Clarify please.
>Reply:
>Alan
>
>It was quite clear in my post that I was refering to the increased
>level of IGF-1(sorry it supposed to be Romain I) as a concern. If you
>refer to the full paper(its available from the abstract) on page 789
>table 1 you can see there is a 34% average increase in IGG-I.
>
>Alan Wrote:
>> There is a note on the increase on IGF-I, (not IGF-1) but
>> the relationship between that and cancer is still tenuous at
>> best. As a dumb non-biochemist looking in it strikes me that
>> the relationship is about as clear as that for ingested
>> cholesterol and heart disease. Clear as mud.
>> Here is one of the more recent studies on that:http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprin...l_1/S17?ck=nck
>> "Evidence for a link between IGF-I and cancer"
>
>Reply:
>Well Alan I wasn't going to call you dumb, but since you've already
>admitted as much I must agree in this particular instance. ( I
>acutally think your a smart, but biased guy)
>The study you referenced totally supported my view. In fact the
>authors state at the end of the paper:
>
>************************************************* *****************************************
>"This review has discussed the considerable evidence in
>support of an important role for the GH/IGF-I axis in
>the development and growth of many cancers."
>************************************************* *****************************************
>
>A complete understanding of the low level mechanisms might be lacking
>and very complicated, but that has nothing to do with the considerable
>evidence pointing to a connection. One doesn't have to know how
>cirgaratte smoking causes cancer before he avoids smoking.
>
>Once again I invite anyone that's interested in looking a quality
>studies on this issue to check out these links:
>http://cancer.ucsf.edu/u56/pilotprojects.php
>http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-...evelopment.htm
>http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...act/67/16/7923
>http://www.google.com/search?source=...=&q=IGF+cancer
>
>I'm not saying that the association of increased IGF-I is absolute but
>there is enough data that makes this topic worthy of a conversation
>
>Regards
>Randy
>

o 1

Increased protein consumption -> increased IGF-I; possibly.

Worthy of conversation; yes.

An important role; probably.

What that role is; unknown.

Beneficial or harmful; unknown.

o 2

Excessive carbohydrate consumption in diabetics -> high
blood glucose levels unless medications added; proven.

High blood glucose levels -> complications; proven.

Excessive medication to counter high BG's -> complications;
THAT, in my opinion, is what ACCORD is proving.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice

On Mar 1, 5:01*pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> ra...@val.com wrote:
> > Susan Wrote:
>
> >>I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate.
>
Randy Wrote:
You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of
the
professional world does.

Susan Wrote:
> So what? *The majority of the professional world told women for 25 years
> that HRT prevented stroke, dementia and heart disease and that SIDS
> deaths were an inherited trait when it turned out they ran in families
> because of homicidal mothers.

Reply:
Susan - Do you know the difference between an empirical statement
(something that can be verified by evidence,ie HRT prevented stroke,
dementia and heart disease ) and a definition (28 grams in a once, 12
inches in a foot, High Protein diet >=30%). It appears you don't.

A definition in this context refers an agreed equivalency established
either offically (NIST,ISO) or unofficially through common argreed
usage.

High protein diets >=30% of calories are commonly accepted by the
scientific community. I already provided one link to this effect. This
in not a matter of experiment verification and does not depend on
experiemental evidence. Its just a definition that agreed upon. It
impossible to have reasonable conversions without these kinds of
definitions.

Phil question regarded High Protein Diets, it makes absolutely no
sense why we should use your differing defintion as opposed to the
usage in the scientific community.

Regards
Randy






>
> > Even the authors of the LoBag study refer to it as a HIGH Protein
> > diet.
>
> So what? *I don't adopt opinions as fact.
>
> Susan

<randy@val.com> wrote in message
news:c332dc07-db4f-4412-89a6-56f88d0c2081@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>The diet inquestion increased IGF-1 by 34% with a P <.006 so the
>increase was caused by the diet.

>If anyone would like to read more about IGF-1 and cancer to see if
>there is any reason for concern here are some links:

The growth factor is a biomarker ; the real question is : "does the protein
in the diet raise your risk on cancer ?" If red meat... maybe , if from fish
or plant or dairy NO .It will lower your cancer risk.Protein and especial
some amino acids will improve on your diabetes.Arginine is the starting
material for NO lowering your CVD risk.Protein generates a very high CCK
satiety signal , good for eating less , good for loosing belly fat.The real
risk is animal fat and processed red meat.Here is just one example.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/93/17/1330
Milk Intake, Circulating Levels of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I, and Risk of
Colorectal Cancer in Men

Conclusion: Intake of dairy products was associated with a modest increase
in circulating IGF-I levels, but intake of low-fat milk was associated with
lower risk of colorectal cancer, particularly among individuals with high
IGF-I/IGFBP-3. This subpopulation, which is at increased risk of colorectal
cancer, might benefit the most from specific dietary intervention.

Gys

<randy@val.com> wrote in message
news:c332dc07-db4f-4412-89a6-56f88d0c2081@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Susan Wrote:
> I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate.

You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the
professional world does.

--------------------------

What exactly is it about protein that has your panties in a wad Randy?

My calories are lower than a lot of other people so my protein levels would
be lower also, especially as I also eat very little grain and other foods
where protein is food as well as the usual meat, fish etc sources. Even if
higher protein was dangerous what does the percentage matter? My 30% or
whatever my percentage may be is within the recommended daily amount for
protein. Where is your 30%? And please do count the protein you get in your
diet from non meats too please.

On Mar 1, 6:41*pm, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@planet.nl> wrote:
> <ra...@val.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c332dc07-db4f-4412-89a6-56f88d0c2081@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >The diet inquestion increased IGF-1 by 34% with a P <.006 so the
> >increase was caused by the diet.
> >If anyone would like to read more about IGF-1 and cancer to see if
> >there is any reason for concern here are some links:
>
> The growth factor is a biomarker ; the real question is : "does the protein
> in the diet raise your risk on cancer ?" If red meat... maybe , if from fish
> or plant or dairy NO .It will lower your cancer risk.Protein and especial
> some amino acids will improve on your diabetes.Arginine is the starting
> material for NO lowering your CVD risk.Protein generates a very high CCK
> satiety signal , good for eating less , good for loosing belly fat.The real
> risk is animal fat and processed red meat.Here is just one example.
>
> http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/93/17/1330
> Milk Intake, Circulating Levels of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I, and Risk of
> Colorectal Cancer in Men
>
> Conclusion: Intake of dairy products was associated with a modest increase
> in circulating IGF-I levels, but intake of low-fat milk was associated with
> lower risk of colorectal cancer, particularly among individuals with high
> IGF-I/IGFBP-3. This subpopulation, which is at increased risk of colorectal
> cancer, might benefit the most from specific dietary intervention.
>
> Gys

Hi Gys,
This is an interesting paper but only minimally relavent to the LoBAG
data.

1. This study showed that 3 serving of low fat milk reduced the
incidence to CC (colon Cancer) in subjects with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3
(IGFBP-3 binds and thereby inactivates its effects. The point being
that low fat milk products have a protective effect on high
IGF-I/IGFBP-3, not the high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 are not harmfull. In fact
these same authors have published papers demonstrating increased CC
with higher IGF-I/IGFBP-3. The fact the milk can reduce the effects of
high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 doesn't negate bad stuff thats associated with high
IGF-I/IGFBP-3 in wider contexts. Smokers that eat alot of vegatables
fair better than those that don't, but thats not a not quilty verdict
on smoking.

Many studies have shown a negative association between low fat dairy
products and CC and many studies have show a Positive association
between dairy products and prostate cancer. Additionally both cancers
are positively associated the high IGF-I/IGFBP-3(CC is associated with
high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 when dairy products are not consumed. Also breast
cancer which is associated with high IGF-I has been discussed at all.

Here's what the authors say:
"In summary, this prospective study suggests a protective effect of
dietary calcium on colorectal cancer incidence among men with a
high IGF-I/IGFBP-3, despite the moderate positive influence of milk or
dairy food intake on circulating IGF-I levels. The hypothesis
that the effect of calcium to reduce colorectal cancer risk varies
according to IGF-I levels should be examined further in studies with
more detailed dietary assessment and in dietary intervention trials."

I agree, low fat dairy is recommended to reduce CC if you don't mind
the increased incidence of prostate cancer (and this is dabatable)

2. The scale of IFG-1 in these two studies are not comparable. The
LoBAG (30% protein) diet increased IGF-I by 35% where as the milk
study only increased IGF-1 by ~13%. BTW, I don't know how much red
meat is included in the LoBAG diet, but total sat fat was <10% of all
calories. So they either used very lean beef or lots of chicken and
fish.

Regards
Randy

On Mar 1, 6:21*pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:09:38 -0800 (PST), "ra...@val.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> >Alan Wrote:
> >> I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've
> >> read before. I could find no mention of risk of cancer or
> >> carcinogens. Clarify please.
> >Reply:
> >Alan
>
> >It was quite clear in my post that I was refering to the increased
> >level of IGF-1(sorry it supposed to be Romain I) as a concern. If you
> >refer to the full paper(its available from the abstract) on page 789
> >table 1 you can see there is a 34% average increase in IGG-I.
>
> >Alan Wrote:
> >> There is a note on the increase on IGF-I, (not IGF-1) but
> >> the relationship between that and cancer is still tenuous at
> >> best. As a dumb non-biochemist looking in it strikes me that
> >> the relationship is about as clear as that for ingested
> >> cholesterol and heart disease. Clear as mud.
> >> Here is one of the more recent studies on that:http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprin...l_1/S17?ck=nck
> >> "Evidence for a link between IGF-I and cancer"
>
> >Reply:
> >Well Alan I wasn't going to call you dumb, but since you've already
> >admitted as much I must agree in this particular instance. ( I
> >acutally think your a smart, but biased guy)
> >The study you referenced totally supported my view. In fact the
> >authors state at the end of the paper:
>
> >************************************************* ******************************************
> >"This review has discussed the considerable evidence in
> >support of an important role for the GH/IGF-I axis in
> >the development and growth of many cancers."
> >************************************************* ******************************************
>
> >A complete understanding of the low level mechanisms might be lacking
> >and very complicated, but that has nothing to do with the considerable
> >evidence pointing to a connection. One doesn't have to know how
> >cirgaratte smoking causes cancer before he avoids smoking.
>
> >Once again I invite anyone that's interested in looking a quality
> >studies on this issue to check out these links:
> >http://cancer.ucsf.edu/u56/pilotprojects.php
> >http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-...evelopment.htm
> >http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...act/67/16/7923
> >http://www.google.com/search?source=...=&q=IGF+cancer
>
> >I'm not saying that the association of increased IGF-I is absolute but
> >there is enough data that makes this topic worthy of a conversation
>
> >Regards
> >Randy
>
> o 1

Alan Wrote:
> o 2
> Excessive carbohydrate consumption in diabetics -> high
> blood glucose levels unless medications added; proven.
>
> High blood glucose levels -> complications; proven.
>
> Excessive medication to counter high BG's -> complications;
> THAT, in my opinion, is what ACCORD is proving.


Reply:
Alan,
Did you forget to take your ADHD meds. We were discussing IGF-1 and
high protein diets.

I read your analsys for the ACCORD study and agreed. In fact I was
going to complement you on a well done job. It would be great if you
could mantain the degree of objectivity that you all too rarelly
demonstrate.

Regards
Randy

x-no-archive: yes

GysdeJongh wrote:

> The growth factor is a biomarker ; the real question is : "does the protein
> in the diet raise your risk on cancer ?" If red meat... maybe , if from fish
> or plant or dairy NO .

There's no evidence to support that statement, Gys. Only cured meats
have a positive association, which is not by itself anything close to
proof of causation. No studies have ever separated out garbage meats
from wholesome red meats.

It will lower your cancer risk.Protein and especial
> some amino acids will improve on your diabetes.Arginine is the starting
> material for NO lowering your CVD risk.Protein generates a very high CCK
> satiety signal , good for eating less , good for loosing belly fat.The real
> risk is animal fat and processed red meat.Here is just one example.

Red meat is absolutely not a risk, nor is animal fat.

Feedlot meat yes, red meat, no.

Susan

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:29:04 -0800 (PST), "randy@val.com"
<randy@val.com> wrote:

>> >I'm not saying that the association of increased IGF-I is absolute but
>> >there is enough data that makes this topic worthy of a conversation
>>
>> >Regards
>> >Randy
>>
>> o 1
>
>Alan Wrote:
>> o 2
>> Excessive carbohydrate consumption in diabetics -> high
>> blood glucose levels unless medications added; proven.
>>
>> High blood glucose levels -> complications; proven.
>>
>> Excessive medication to counter high BG's -> complications;
>> THAT, in my opinion, is what ACCORD is proving.
>
>
>Reply:
>Alan,
>Did you forget to take your ADHD meds. We were discussing IGF-1 and
>high protein diets.
>
So we were. Now re-read #1 up there again. I'll ignore the
puerile personal barbs.

Since you accidentally snipped it, I've copied it below to
help you:

o 1

Increased protein consumption -> increased IGF-I; possibly.

Worthy of conversation; yes.

An important role; probably.

What that role is; unknown.

Beneficial or harmful; unknown.

Now, tell me. If you leave protein levels low enough to
satisfy your worries about IGF-I, and you keep fats low
because the USDA have convinced the world they are evil,
which macron