Live data from Hacker News

Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

news.stonybrook.edu

291–300 of 343 posts

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#291
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with most all of your posts. The one big difference, though, in my opinion, is that when adapted to a very low carbohydrate diet, it's actually easier for me to not eat. That's it. To me, it's the lone advantage. It's not about the palatability of the low-carb meals. It's that I just seem to be less hungry. I can skip a meal and it's no big deal. When I'm higher carb, missing a meal takes a way bigge…

When you state "very low carbohydrate diet" - what do you mean? Do you mean you're actively avoiding fruits and vegetables, oats, nuts, etc? Or are you avoiding processed foods and the carbs that go along with that? The "carbs are the devil" argument is a huge misconception with people. You mentioned that it's easier for you to not eat on a very low carbohydrate diet. My main eating regimen is two feeding periods tha…

I'd say modern grains and "vegetable oil" are probably the biggest issues... heritage grains in moderation are more okay. We take in a lot of refined grains and sugars. And cook everything in oils people wouldn't recognize as food a couple hundred years ago, let alone trans fats.

That combined with a huge uptick in constantly eating all the time, sugary drinks, etc... eating 6-8 times a day. Most people can get away with 1-2 meals a day and a small snack or coffee outside those main meal(s). Longer fasting has historically been involuntary and/or religious, has other benefits that should be included pretty regularly as well.

I think animal proteins and fats are good to keep, even just eggs, butter and fish. There's a lot of nutrition in egg yolks, kidney and/or liver meat and it isn't the same from vegetable sources. Animal protein is also a bit different in terms of absorption than vegetable as well. It's not hard for people to get 100-150g of appropriate protein a day on average either and doesn't have to come from higher animals.

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#292
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gone through several thousand papers the past year or two so I feel like I'm more well-versed in nutrition than most nutritionists/dieticians at this point, certainly in my understanding the recent clinical/research literature. I rarely post any nutritional/health related statements without citations to peer-reviewed work (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=lhl ) I think most people don't publish labs…

This is really cool and I think you're doing more due diligence than any HN user I've ever seen. The confounding variable is that you lost a lot of weight, of course, and I think many people who lose weight will be healthier at least in the short term. A question I've had in my head for a while is whether someone who has to stay on a ketogenic diet to be a healthy weight has "healed" or has just masked the underlying…

I'd argue that weight loss isn't a confounding variable, as resolving dyslipidemia and MetS is actually one of the main points of the intervention. As for "masking the underlying issue" - let's face it, if you go back to regularly eating a terrible diet, yes, you'll become unhealthy again, but the same would go be true for any chronic insult.

Personally, I'm a believer in metabolic flexibility and I do take time off (vacations, parties and special events, or just when I feel like it) to indulge. The difference now is that I am more acutely paying attention to how the food is making me feel (turns out for example when I have excess bread/sugar, I end up getting a pimple or two that I had originally never connected to being driven by dietary excesses), having a framework to think about how the food will affect my health (what do I think my liver glycogen levels are at?), and much pickier in general about how much I'll eat (my "worth it" taste bar is much higher - if it doesn't taste good I can now just stop). I also feel like I now have effective tools to pull various metabolic levers, whereas before I didn't.

Regarding thyroid numbers, IMO taking about what is "optimal" is actually much trickier than "in range" (which are just standard deviations) because they need to be taken in the context of how you actually feel and if you present any symptoms (for hypothyroidism that would be fatigue, increased sensitivity to cold, weight gain, muscle weakness, etc) - which may be another reason people don't post numbers. Surrogate markers are most useful 1) sequentially per individual and 2) need to be considered with whether those numbers actually correlate with symptoms/reflect pathophysiology. Some are pretty obvious, but thyroid numbers seem to be one of those that requires a lot of careful nuance, but seems not worth the trouble (tracking TSH, T3, T4, rT3, rT4, TPO, Tg) unless you're presenting.

For kidney issues, eGFR is something you'd look at, you'd want to take a look if any of your CMP numbers are out of wack, but I personally wouldn't be worried about acidosis - it's almost never a problem for non T1Ds (would be a sign of a major insulin:glucagon issue at least) but you'd definitely know (and need to know) if it were an issue well outside of regular bloodwork.

If metabolic rate is a concern, I think RMR and DXA are a much better combo for tracking, btw.

As for prolactin, if that's something you want to track and can use as a long term marker that is actionable for you, great, more power to you. It looks like it's only $60 out of pocket, so not terrible, but just recognize that if you throw it out there as something that a number that people should know or care about, or that you want to compare with, it simply won't be.

For chronic stress, I'd suggest 24h cortisol, and maybe some inflammatory markers (I use hsCRP as my one catch all canary, but other common ones include ESR, IL6, TNFa), but for most people, you'd probably get more value day to day from mood and sleep tracking (especially ones that can track HRV or CNS values like the EMFIT).

Calcium is measured via the CMP and deficiencies would I suppose show up in a DXA as well (eg if your bone density Z-score was quite low), but again, I think that's a thing where you'd only be worried about it if you were presenting symptoms (extreme fatigue, hair and nail issues, sleep issues, etc).

I do think that if you are trying to track down nonspecific issues (eg "fatigue") you're going to have to do a bunch of detective work, which may involve more and more esoteric labs, but I'd also posit that most of those could probably also be addressed by relatively simple lifestyle interventions, starting with an appropriate/nutrient-dense diet and the most basic mood/energy tracking (eg:1-5 phone app like MySymptoms or Daylio correlated with interventions), and an engineering mindset.

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#293

A lot of folks here are using the term "intermittent fasting". This is a term that can make people struggling with eating disorders kinda lose their minds. May suggest to replace this term with what's probably a better way of saying it anyway, because it's more accurate to what people are really doing when they say IF: Call it "time-restricted eating" . You're eating the food you eat for a day in a smaller window. No…

There is some correlation between the benefits of "time-restricted eating" and full-blown fasting (autophagy, etc), so it makes some sense to talk about them similarly. There are many benefits to full water fasts, even for 2-3 days (and it's much easier to do successfully if one is already in ketosis). See the work of Dr. Jason Fung: https://thefastingmethod.com/

While we're at it: "Intermittent fasting" versus ... fasting until you die? All fasting is intermittent. IF just doesn't communicate anything regardless. I think it's clear it's just a bad term. Time restricted eating actually describes something specific.

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you state "very low carbohydrate diet" - what do you mean? Do you mean you're actively avoiding fruits and vegetables, oats, nuts, etc? Or are you avoiding processed foods and the carbs that go along with that? The "carbs are the devil" argument is a huge misconception with people. You mentioned that it's easier for you to not eat on a very low carbohydrate diet. My main eating regimen is two feeding periods tha…

By "high carb," I only mean to suggest easily-digestible high-glycemic index carbohydrates. I really do think there's something to the blood glucose spike and crash cycle and its relationship to satiety. I suspect you agree with that. However, whether through plants or other foods, I think it's the fat that most effectively satiates. You can get those fats through nuts and plant oils, but I find it's easier and tasti…

With regard to agreement, not exactly. There's a lot of research around high fiber intake being one of the most prominent indicators of satiety [0]. Keep in mind most all meats are densely loaded with calories compared to whole plants. Fats are less satiating than fiber in many studies [1]. Hence it's far easier to overconsume fats via meats because no meat contains fiber and, again, is more dense per gram with regard to fat.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-018-0295-7

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53550/

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "high carb," I only mean to suggest easily-digestible high-glycemic index carbohydrates. I really do think there's something to the blood glucose spike and crash cycle and its relationship to satiety. I suspect you agree with that. However, whether through plants or other foods, I think it's the fat that most effectively satiates. You can get those fats through nuts and plant oils, but I find it's easier and tasti…

With regard to agreement, not exactly. There's a lot of research around high fiber intake being one of the most prominent indicators of satiety [0]. Keep in mind most all meats are densely loaded with calories compared to whole plants. Fats are less satiating than fiber in many studies [1]. Hence it's far easier to overconsume fats via meats because no meat contains fiber and, again, is more dense per gram with regar…

I don't actually read either of your linked studies to support what you say. But be that as it may, I think fiber is also satiating. It's just difficult to hit my macros when eating all broccoli. Broccoli, butter, and steak, on the other hand, is a nearly perfect meal. I get the sense you're invested in a plant-based diet. Good for you! I'm sure there are way to engineer the outcomes you want with plants.

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#296
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an N of one, I present my situation: Since mid-January this year I have been fasting intemittently. I have zero calories before 5PM, and I am usually in bed by 10. I exercise most weeks between 4 and six days, but only two or so are "vigorous" for me. My workouts are mid-day. When I eat, I eat normally for me, which is lower carb and higher protein, but not (knowingly) keto or anything. I have lost about 10 pounds…

"I have zero calories before 5PM" Did you mean after 5PM? Other than weight loss, do you feel any differently (body, mind)? I have started IF last fall. Similar diet - low carb, higher protein. I also had considerable weight loss, but no impact on blood quality.

[deleted]

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#297
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an N of one, I present my situation: Since mid-January this year I have been fasting intemittently. I have zero calories before 5PM, and I am usually in bed by 10. I exercise most weeks between 4 and six days, but only two or so are "vigorous" for me. My workouts are mid-day. When I eat, I eat normally for me, which is lower carb and higher protein, but not (knowingly) keto or anything. I have lost about 10 pounds…

"I have zero calories before 5PM" Did you mean after 5PM? Other than weight loss, do you feel any differently (body, mind)? I have started IF last fall. Similar diet - low carb, higher protein. I also had considerable weight loss, but no impact on blood quality.

No- before. I eat between 5pm and 10pm. I guess I feel better. With placebo effect and whatnot it’s hard to know. My workouts took a hit initially but eventually got back to their normal intensity.

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#298
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really cool and I think you're doing more due diligence than any HN user I've ever seen. The confounding variable is that you lost a lot of weight, of course, and I think many people who lose weight will be healthier at least in the short term. A question I've had in my head for a while is whether someone who has to stay on a ketogenic diet to be a healthy weight has "healed" or has just masked the underlying…

I'd argue that weight loss isn't a confounding variable, as resolving dyslipidemia and MetS is actually one of the main points of the intervention. As for "masking the underlying issue" - let's face it, if you go back to regularly eating a terrible diet, yes, you'll become unhealthy again, but the same would go be true for any chronic insult. Personally, I'm a believer in metabolic flexibility and I do take time off…

I think a lot of people are aware of prolactin because a lot of overweight men have manboobs and don't want them. But up to you, at least you're testing liver and cholesterol -- not everyone can say that. I listed it first because if someone would only agree to test one thing and nothing else, I think it should be prolactin.

Well the suggestion wasn't for me personally, it was for people doing keto. My contention is that if any of those numbers are off, they're probably wrong or missing something about keto.

Interesting pts on the thyroid stuff, I'll have to think about it

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#299

The title is terrible, it should read ketosis/ketones may prevent, reverse age-related effects within the brain. "Low carb" as the title currently reads does not necessarily result in ketosis and your body/brain running on ketones, which appears to be the scope of this study. There is more to dietary ketosis than low carb, just as an example carnivore or paleo diets are low carb, but those will generally not result i…

> If you have never entered ketosis and experienced your brain running on ketones, I would suggest you experiment for yourself. I would say a minimum 2-3 months which should be enough time for your microbiome to change and your body/brain to adapt primarily running on ketones. I've been on Keto for about 8 months (before giving up), measuring my blood ketones and being in deep ketosis between meals (over 2 mmol/L). I…

Sorry it did not work for you as an individual, but turning that around to say that anyone else with a more positive experience is just placebo is a bit of a logical fallacy. Why do you think your own personal experience should be the one source of truth for the whole universe? Don't you know the 7 billion people alive all have unique bodies that respond to things differently?

Have you tried anything else health-wise (diets, medicine, exercise plan etc)after Keto? And is it working? If it is, its most likely just a placebo and not really beneficial in of itself. Thats according to the crux of your argument: if something works, its very likely just a placebo.

Re: Study: Low Carb Diet May Prevent, Reverse Age-Related Effects Within the Brain

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're spending a lot of time in here making accusations of myths and placebos, but none of your counters offer any form of citation. You'd make much stronger points if you included citations. If your points are in fact correct, they would be highly useful.

The problem is a claim like the body/brain, the cells themselves needing to adapt to a new fuel source before seeing some benefits, taking months before you get there, actually contradicts the body's physiology. I don't really need to provide any citations, because the onus is on the one making those claims. And even if I provide citations, the goal posts will simply be moved, with lines like — the study was not long…

I have always felt that most of proposed benefits of the keto diet are largely just a result of "giving a shit." People go through lives eating garbage all the time, laying around feeling bloated and crappy. Then jump onto and after a few weeks feel amazing. The secret is they swapped from shoveling garbage into themselves with becoming relatively picky about what they're willing to put in their bodies. Suddenly they look better and feel better, and want to double down on looking and feeling better.

I myself did the keto diet and found success with it, but then I transitioned to just more of a selective generalized diet and experienced identical effects. Keto was just the first time I'd ever had a set of rules to apply to the food I ate, which was ultimately the actual training I needed.

Post reply on HN