Since late 2016 we have entered the age of disclosures! Fasten your mental safety belt and enjoy the ride! Heretic

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Ketogenic diet reverses kidney failure caused by sugar

... in diabetic mice!



New study was just reported on the BBC Health: Diet 'can reverse kidney failure' in mice with diabetes

Quote:

A controlled diet high in fat and low in carbohydrate can repair kidney damage in diabetic mice, according to US scientists. The study, published in journal PLoS ONE, showed a "ketogenic diet" could reverse damage caused to tubes in the kidneys by too much sugar in the blood. ... After eight weeks the researchers noted that kidney damage was reversed. Professor Charles Mobbs, who led the research at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said: "Our study is the first to show that a dietary intervention alone is enough to reverse this serious complication of diabetes.

The study:

Reversal of Diabetic Nephropathy by a Ketogenic Diet

Quote:
In mouse models for both Type 1 (Akita) and Type 2 (db/db) diabetes, diabetic nephropathy (as indicated by albuminuria) was allowed to develop, then half the mice were switched to a ketogenic diet. After 8 weeks on the diet, mice were sacrificed to assess gene expression and histology. Diabetic nephropathy, as indicated by albumin/creatinine ratios as well as expression of stress-induced genes, was completely reversed by 2 months maintenance on a ketogenic diet. However, histological evidence of nephropathy was only partly reversed. These studies demonstrate that diabetic nephropathy can be reversed by a relatively simple dietary intervention. Whether reduced glucose metabolism mediates the protective effects of the ketogenic diet remains to be determined.

Let's look at this detail, quote:

None of the conditions influenced blood pH, although there was a non-significant trend toward reduced blood pH (i.e., acidification) in diabetic mice, and the ketogenic diet reversed this trend.

In other words:

-- KETOGENIC DIET REVERSED DIABETIC ACIDIFICATION! --

Which totally undermines all the bullshit that the mainstream medical authorities together with vegetarian promoters used to hurl against Atkins! Furthermore:

-- KETONE PROTECTS AGAINST GLUCOSE TOXICITY AND AGAINST OXIDATIVE STRESS --

As the authors explain, quote:

The ketone 3-OHB is cytoprotective
To further assess potential mechanisms mediating the protective effects of the ketogenic diet, and since glucose toxicity in diabetes is thought to be mediated by glucose-induced oxidative stress, we assessed if the ketone 3-OHB would protect cells from oxidative stress enhanced by either high or low glucose. As shown in Figure 6, 3-OHB produced a dose-responsive cytoprotective effect at both elevated and reduced glucose.

The authors also concluded that:

-- REDUCTION OF GLUCOSE METABOLISM MAY BE GENERALLY BENEFICIAL --

Quote:

...we hypothesize that at least part of the restorative effect was mediated by reduction of glucose metabolism. This hypothesis is supported by several lines of evidence. First, the ketogenic diet appears to reduce the frequency of epileptic seizures by reducing glucose metabolism [11], [12]. Second, molecular responses to the ketogenic diet indicates a re-routing of cellular metabolism away from glucose utilization and toward the use of alternative fuels [13], [14]. Finally, we have shown that ketone 3-OHB blocks molecular effects of glucose [9]. We therefore hypothesize that the ketogenic diet reverses diabetic nephropathy by raising blood levels of 3-OHB which subsequently reduce glucose metabolism in at least some tissues including kidney. Since ketones and the ketogenic diet are neuroprotective in a wide range of conditions [31], a phenomenon we have corroborated in the present study (Figure 6), it seems highly likely that the ketogenic diet will be protective in diabetic neuropathy and possibly retinopathy as well.
.

16 comments :

BigWhiskey said...

Great news, indeed!!!

Jenna said...

OK, I am confused, I have no Science background to sift through and make sense of this but what I gleam so far, is that, currently through the blogoshpere: Steven (WHS)is inserting that food reward is a mitigating *factor* in Obesity, metabolic damage etc, as though this is an aside from "neolithic agents of disease". A useful distinction being "wanting" a food substance verses "liking", as Paul (PHD) has suggested; which accounts for the qualities to some degree of "neolithic agents of disease" (sugar, as in sucrose, an example). You, Heretic, think high fat, low carb diets, are superior according to your personal experience eating that way for an extended period of time, and also what you understand theoretically makes sense. As Chris Masterjohn asserts the importance of liver function, so do you; the lipid hypothesis being important here; as SFA's/choline, etc help support liver function (an example of an aspect of the theory that you support). Chris does not on the other hand see insulin raising starch as a problem. I have read that high fat/low carb diets are OK, for enabling a short period of readressing energy balance, malfunction, if you like (the approach being different from suffers of epilepsy to those of parkinsons disease or alcoholism)- But that longer periods of time are stressful, to the thyroid particularly, as stated by Atkins...

Jenna said...

Now there is conflict; Steven asserts food reward as a significant factor in Obesity, diregarding to some extent the relevance of starch raising insulin, apart from in "special cases". Looking at how Stevens theoretical understanding is mirrored by what he chooses to eat, starch is on the cards for "good health", or as I would say, so as not to readily generalize ". . . for Stevens "good health". (The potato guy's experiment was seen as significant, I do not see how; firstly he is a man, and I do not think nutritional theories tend to take into account this gender difference (eg, how are hormones influenced by high fat nutrition in women?). Also I do not see how this one example, which was over a relatively short period of time, can be extrapolated to fit a wide population of individuals who need to address their health over their life time). Emily aserts that we need a high fat diet for proper functioning of the brain, to reduce inflamation etc; through seeing how she chooses to eat one can assume that she does favor restricting the amount of insulin through starch sources, or at least she is tentative about its consumption. Don, asserts that high fat/animal nutrition contributes to metabolic damage and that the research high fat nutrition theorically is flawed; thus the implications being that he is also undermining the relevance of starch sources contributing to insulin resistance/metabolic damage; this judgment he inserts, being somewhat influenced by his and his wifes personal experience (health problems encountered on high fat/high animal diet).

Jenna said...

My personal experience is that I went on Atkins, and became anorexic, which became bulimia. It has taken a very long time to get through this illness, and there are many consequences. I'm not really sure what went so wrong, as I know there are many factors in my case, but I do know that diet has had a very big influence; largely due to my lack of understanding what is good for me. I am asking you, what would you do in my position? Who's advice would you take? If you can imagine, how would you best advice my objectivity? I am not a Scientist, I am Joe Blogg with a health problem. I think ultimately I take from all this confusion, that we are all individual, we come into this world with different internal and external climates, and so we must have different methods of dealing with these climates, though our methods exist within a certain range of sense and nonsense. What strategy would you take if you were me? Do I start with a textbook? It's just difficult to know where to go when there are many framed egos pastered over the cracks; selling a product readily before promoting health. Many thanks. Apologies, this is so long.

Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi Jenna,

Those various dietary-disease or diet-health connections you listed are not necessarily contradictory.

1) Stephan's "food reward is a mitigating *factor* in Obesity, metabolic damage etc,"

I agree with him although I do not believe that this is the only factor and I don't think this is always the main factor for everyone.

This "food reward" factor is the fact in case of certain new food products such as wheat and sugar.

It is the same mechanism behind addictions in general (tobacco, opiates etc). He calls that "reward", a better way is calling it "food addiction" that is what it really is.

2) Re: As Chris Masterjohn asserts the importance of liver function, so do you; the lipid hypothesis being important here; as SFA's/choline, etc help support liver function (an example of an aspect of the theory that you support). Chris does not on the other hand see insulin raising starch as a problem.

Chris is right too. Carbohydrates are taxing the liver, especially fructose. Putting more fat in the diet alleviates this and also supplies a range of essential nutrients plus a lot of easily obtainable calories as Don's brother (I am guessing) Ken has written!

Chris' and Weston A. Price Foundation ideas of basing one's diet on a variety of traditional foods is very sound one! You might perhaps miss a truly Optimal Diet but you are unlikely to do badly or harm yourself through some toxic novelty garbage.

3) Re: "I have read that high fat/low carb diets are OK, for enabling a short period of readressing energy balance, malfunction, if you like (the approach being different from suffers of epilepsy to those of parkinsons disease or alcoholism)- But that longer periods of time are stressful, to the thyroid particularly, as stated by Atkins..."

High fat Low Carb diet is not difficult in the long term and is easier than other diet as long as it is based on truly natural traditional food and in natural proportions. It becomes problematic if one tries to make it either low car AND low fat or using some unnatural forms of fat s or proteins, for example attempting to make it vegetarian low carb etc. Epileptic treatment a la dr. Kwinter causes problems because the guy is feeding his patients some artificially extracted fatty concoctions or margarines.

HF LC diet does not cause thyroid damae (that is the exclusive specialty of vegetarian or plant based diets). HF LC diet can cure thyroid disorders in many cases (some cases of thyroid cures are described in Dr. Kwasniewski's books and on the Optimal Association websites)

[cont]

Stan (Heretic) said...

Going back to #2 - I forgot to mention this: insulin rising aspect of starch is not damaging for healthy people without metabolic syndrome, because starch = glucose (with zero fructose!) which the liver will always convert an excessive of it to fat and will store it, just as if you ate the pure fat in the first place.

However, I think that starch should never be the first choice of food for people with metabolic syndrome, impaired glucose tolerance, insulin resistance (most of the mentioned are probably synonymous) or with a damaged liver. Starch (glucose) should not be the main staple food in situations where the body is deprived of certain microelements such as zink, magnesium or lacking vitamin D and C. Those are absolutely essential for glucose metabolism but are not needed to the same extent in fatty metabolism.

So if you are living in a tropical island and eat plenty of fruit (vit C) and spend a lot of time in the sun (vit D), you can be very healthy on, for example a lot of veggies + some fish diet.

If you are living in a country with only 3 days of sunshine a year and also happen to be deficient in magnesium, C and D then your best bet is eat what other people of the North ate in the past. Animal fat, meat and fish. It is as simple as that. Don't try to be too fancy about food.

[cont]

Stan (Heretic) said...

4) Re: Emily aserts that we need a high fat diet for proper functioning of the brain, to reduce inflamation etc; through seeing how she chooses to eat one can assume that she does favor restricting the amount of insulin through starch sources, or at least she is tentative about its consumption.

This is absolutely true nd very important! One has to consume some essential fats (a variety of them) on any diet, veg based, Paleo or whatever!

Keep in mind that high fat also excludes high carb! You have to consume only HF or only HC at a time! So it is a matter of practicality that if you choose to consume a lot of fat you have to leave aside that bowl of potatoes! Otherwise you may end up overeating. Carbs consumed just before or together with fat stimulate appetite. Carbs and fats also do not metabolise well together (this is described and discussed extensively in Kwasniewski's book).

5) Re: Don, asserts that high fat/animal nutrition contributes to metabolic damage and that the research high fat nutrition theorically is flawed;

He may believe so but so far his choice of scientific studies to support his views has been seriously flawed and not very credible. None of his studies used a true high fat low carb diet although many have misleadingly called their diet "high fat".

Notice that Peter has also posted him some counter studies on high fat blood coagulation, to which Don hasn't yet responded.

I have not come across any study on any true low carb high animal fat diet that would show any deleterious effect, although I am open to accept one if it ever shows up. I am not prejudiced nor fanatical about it. If "Paleo" diet did not work for him then perhaps he is genetically different from most humans that used to consume fat and meat for millions of years (possible but improbable) or that he made some mistakes (more likely) or that he has some disease unrelated to a diet (also likely).

For example, the only documented gastrointestinal problems that some minority of people experience on Kwasniewski's high animal fat low carb diet are those with intestinal parasites. Those problems always disappear once the parasites are treated and killed.
[cont]

Stan (Heretic) said...

6) Re: My personal experience is that I went on Atkins, and became anorexic, which became bulimia. It has taken a very long time to get through this illness, and there are many consequences.

I would have to know more details such as what did you eat and what problems or symptoms were you experiencing. Did you have other not diet related health problems before or during your Atkins experiment?

Dr. Wolfgan Lutz wrote in his "Life Without Bread" that a low carb diet has been very successful in treating people who were underweight. My weight also went up and has now stabilized on a higher level - 67kg which now is closer to my normal weight. I have always been too thin for my height and used to weigh 63kg for ever before the high fat LC diet.

Disclaimer: I am not a medical doctor - if you have serious medical problems, you should first and foremost seek an advise from a competent medical practitioner!

Regards,
Stan

Jenna said...

Thanks a lot for your thoughts!

I won't detail my eating disorder experience. It is rather too long to place here, and most likely it will bore you!

To say briefly, I think basically a mixture of things contributed to my eating disorder; I was on antibiotics from the age of 16 for three years for a virus, which probably was not very good for the little green men in my stomach; I had some insecurities about myself, my body etc; I became malnourished thinking I could eat anything so long as I did not consume from without the range of 20 grams of carbs; I basically ate too much cheese, chicken, bacon, fried eggs and butter, peanut butter, tuna and mayonaise; I was addicted to cheese for some reason (trying not to laugh, its too painful at this point); I was a perfectionist, neurotic, vain, obsessive, insecure, very young, a freak, and introvert: not a healthy mix it turned out! I think I just did not make very wise choices, and I paid the price through a lack of understanding; I also had some kind of allergy from these foods; for instance I was certainly addicted to cheese, wheat, oats and eventually peanut butter! Though it's been suggested all these problems ultimately stem from self-control, i.e. bad habits (coping mechanism)! Someone shoot the guy/girl, who claims matter is inert, please!

Jenna said...

..... though I guess the guy/girl would then not recollect the 'matter', hahahahaha, OK, so an alternative strategy!

Jenna said...

1) Yes, I don't disagree with your comments, its just Stephan's preference for starch over fat I am confused about. Also his consumption of bland sources of meat, and little animal products. He also combines his macronutrients. And also he doesn't seem that critical of Don's analysis'. Though I am aware that Stephan's is not the kind of person to be so overtly critical, necessarily; he points out corrections where he deems necessary.

2) 'Chris is right too. Carbohydrates are taxing the liver, especially fructose.'

I thought Chris considered carbohydrates necessary, and didn't see a problem with its combination with fat. He outlined in one of his posts suggestions for insomnia; he suggests 'lots of B6, Carbs, Calories, and fat'. I think I made made the wrong assumption that this was a rule, rather then a suggestion for some people. I also thought that he didn't have a problem with fructose, (just HFCS, and sucrose) in the form of fruit, and that choline compensates for the effects of fructose. What's the name of Ken's blog?

3. How do you know in what proportions are right for you? You mention Dr. Kwasniewski, I am guessing that his work is a suggestion as it would most likely be Peters, though, I think I remember (I could have got the name mixed up) Paul (PHD), notes the number of gastrointestinal cancer rates of Knasniewski followers. Though Knasniewski has no problem with potatoes, I vaguely recollect someone commenting. So your comment on 'Intestinal parasites', is interesting. Anyway, perhaps I should look him up, which of his books do you recommend?

Jenna said...

Just to note: I do not 'believe' in pathology. But when you have an eating disorder, that is what psychologists tell you. I think the labels themselves messed me up.

Jenna said...

Correction: I meant to say psychopathology, in terms of my eating disorder. I've come to think of this illness in terms of both physical, and behavioral, this perspective makes better sense to me. Though you could say the distinction is not that separable.

Thanks again.

Melodie said...

Jenna, it might be possible to have anorexic type symptoms other than 'body issues'. I think if one has certain aversions to food and ill side effects (to most common foods), that in itself could cause the person to not want to eat. (Although having 'will power' to force yourself to eat can be used, however that's just as difficult as it is for 'typical dieters' who try to lose weight conventionally.

It's kind of strange, and is pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum when compared to people who try to lose weight.

•Keep in mind, this is talking about a possible mechanism that has nothing to do with any kind of psychological body issues•

What I've been reading up on lately, I'm convinced that HF, low-carb is the best way to go. Both Peter and Stan have been eating this way for more than 10 years and they are quite happy with it. (I know it's not good to use just two people as examples). Of the scientific literature that I'm sifting through, including PHD, I feel most comfortable with the evidence discussed on Peter and Stan's blog.

Hope you find your preferred woe-that of nutrition, satisfaction and health!

Jenna said...

Hi Melodie,

Yes, I think the understanding I am also reaching is that I must have had some allergy to the foods I was eating. I really think the biggest crime by eating disorder practitioners is that anorexic/bulimic symptoms are considered the result of 'psychological issues', a matter just as defunct as calories in, versus calories out. Clearly foods themselves have different qualities; differing effects on gut, brain, and so, hormones, inflammation. And, the list goes on.

The past three months I have really struggled trying to find a way to eat, that feels normal, considering all these arising view points and contradictions, touted by intelligent people.

So anyway, out of utter confusion, the last three months I have basically eaten anything and everything, and with dire results!

I came across Carbsane's blog, Steven's, and others who veer a bit off the track I had been on. I started to question the understanding I had about nutrition. I think that was a mistake for me. But, I am very happy that I experimented, and now I can narrow things down a bit.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts!

DFW Texas Realtor said...

My husband and I are both having good results on the HCG Diet protocol by Dr. Simmeons. It's a Ketogenic-type diet. Well balanced, restricted calorie, low carb, low fat, and uses the stored fat reserves in your body to burn as fuel beyond the very low calories per day of 500.