HR on Diet

Prior to treating, I tried several diets.

The Zone-type diet, which seems similar to what you advocate, balances out protein, fat and carbs in a 30, 30, 40 ratio. The carbs are all low on the glycemic index, not allowing starches, etc, except in very small quantities.  The good carbs are most fructose based, a la fruits.

The other diet was the Pritrikin diet which was basically a very low fat diet -- under 10 per cent of total calories. And while Pritikin doesn’t allow simple sugars, it is rich in complex carbs, including starches, and in fact is based in starches/grains.

On the Pritkin diet, my liver enzymes went into normal range for the first time ever (post infection and pre-tx) and stayed there as long as I stuck to the diet`. Total cholesterol also dropped drmatically although hdl `fell a bit and tri’s increased.

On the other hand, the Zone diet increased my enzymes even from baseline abnormal . Cholesterol dropped from baseline but not as much as from the Pritkin. I also noticed a difficulty in concentrating on the zone diet which I attributed to lack of carbs which are known to fuel the brain.

I do think the Zone no doubt better than the :Thanksgiving diet -- but I also think in the context of a very low fat diet with very few simple sugars -- that a diet rich in starches such as Pritkin is worth considering. As to the low HDL on Pritkin, some very early studies of New Guinea natives….( Cont hopefully if no keyboard problems)

[jmjm530]

Thurst of the New Guinea studies was that when TC was below around 150-140, then HDL wasn't needed for protection. IN fact these natives had very low hdl and `yet almost nonexistent heart diseases.

The problem I see with the Zone type diets is the increased protein intake. On pritikinit was aound 3-4 ounces a day of animal protein -- at most -- with some regiments almost vegitaria`n. On the zone, triple that amount of protein, and for good reason. With so little complex carbs allowed, protein is necessary to keep the caloric count up to a modicum 1800 calories. Less protein would mean wasting away unless fat was increased over 50-60% which in reality is what often happens on a diet like the zone in order to maintain even lean body mass. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

[jmjm530]

to be continued,...

[jmjm530]

sorry for the ramble but technolgy is spanking me today with one computer crashed and the other acting like the neglected gal she has been ...

anyway, `Point I was trying to ma`je was that I think perhaps the higher protein intakes on the very low carb diets tax the liver and therefore the rise in enzymes. Also, these diets tend to be higher in fat, as stated, in order to maintain a modium of daily calories. Pritikin on the other hand may be kinder to the liver with its very low protein and fat levels. The only downside to Pritkin as I see it, might be the tendency for higher triglicerides (triglycerides), which could be combated by either increasing aerobic activity and/or decreasing starches somewhat, but still having basically a grain-based high carb diet.

Interested in your comments and a happy thanksgiving...

[jmjm530]

New Guinea diet btw was based on a variety of Sweet Potatoes, with a literal Pig Fest every 4 years (hunted and gorged on wild bore for a month I think)  or so `where I imagine they soaked in the required B12 , or whatever vegetarians need, for the next four years.

[scratchinghead]

I follow the raw food and Cheetos diet.

[jmjm530]

I'm sure there are books and studies showing that raw food and cheetos work. In fact, I find nutrition probably the most confusing of all fields. Theres the Zone, Pritikin, Ornish, Atkins, South Beach, Vegetarian, The other kind of vegetarian, Raw Food, super low calories, the "balanced"diet, etc, etc. And so many of them contradict each other and so many of them are backed by "studies". Would like to get all the different advocates in the same room for discussion. That should be interesting -- and in fact, I think it was Sears and Ornish who did just that, and from what I remember, the transcript was brutal with Ornish I believe taking Sears to the mat over the legitimacy of his diets claim to be only 30 per cent fat, given the low carb content. It was not a pretty discussion

[scratchinghead]

I hear you.

I do believe insulin spikes from any type of food aren't good for us unless we are Lance Armstrong in the hill climb part of Tour De France. With that belief, a lot of other stuff falls into place.

For example, did you know that corn has all the amino acids except tryptophan and lysine? So if you eat corn with beans or cheese or milk, you have a complete protein. On high-output days I have corn flakes and some protein powder sprinkled in the milk(no fat). The other fancy thing that happens is that corn has a glycemic index of 90 (that's high! read: corn syrup) but when it becomes a complete protein chain, the glycemic index drops incredibly and corn becomes a slow burning power food! I didn't invent this. Ray Jardin, author of "The Lightweight Backpackers Guide to the Pacific Crest Trail" devotes a lot of his book to this subject.

[GoofyDad]

Lance Armstrong - now he's one nutty dude.

Probably the biggest single advantage to corn in the diet that it's an excellent tracer, allowing you to perfectly time the transit route from plate to bowl - if you get my drift.... I don't imagine its nutritional composition matters a whole lot, since it pretty much reappears in the same state it went in.

On that note - I was contemplating my banana this morning - let me clarify, I was contemplating the banana I had a breakfast this morning - when I noticed one of nature's little jokes. You start with a perfectly shaped yellow banana one morning and chew it all up, only to have it reasemble and re-emerge the next morning -- no worse for wear and with a fresh dye job. Go figure.

[miked]

The owner of my first employer was diagnosed with multiple malignant tumors throughout his body.  He was told to get his affairs in order over the next 9-12 months.  He had accumulated a lot of wealth and used it to research new therapies, drugs and diet.  He chose the minimum drugs, the Pritikin diet and hired a full-time gardener to grow organic vegetables.  True story that he lived another 18-20 years past that point.

For two years I did the Pritikin diet, dropped about 15 pounds and felt great.

I think I'm going to go eat some turkey, stuffing, gravy and pumpkin pie with whipped cream.

Mike

[Willy50]

Yes....happy thanksgiving.  Thanks for the great and emblematic chuckle Mike.  All bets are off today.

I started reading Pritikan when I became interested in running.  His 60's book was great and it taught me a bunch about diet.  I am convinced that while I was never able to adopt his diet completely it did alter my sense of diet enough that it has helped preserve my life and appearence.  When I was seen by a surgeon at age (....hmmmm let me think) 47 or so they were blown away at the shape I was in.  I was facing a double hernia repair and was training for an upcoming race right up to my operation.  (by the way I ran my race (5K) 6 weeks after my double hernia repair)

One can't tell about ones health (such as triglycerides or LFT's) by physical appearences. (although one might be able to make some assumptions).  The main thing that most of these diets .....whereas they all have some differences.....they also have commonalities.  They all agree that we eat too much refined sugars, that we get too little excercise,  they agree on limiting or banning certain types of fat intake and really...even the Atkins diet did place some limits on how much protein that we eat.

By the way..... a Pritikan disciple, Ann Louise Gittleman has also written a few books on the subject and updated the Pritikan doctrine (also as has Pritikan) to allow for more fats especially in the form of omega 3's.  One might be interested in her writings also.  In general she (and many others) have been seduced to sell their diet in the form of framing it around the sense of selling weight loss instead of good general health thru diet and excercise.

Should HR read this and have an answer or two....I have one for him.  Like diet, it may also be a question of balance.  Here it is.  I had the general sense that excercise was good for me and I would train quite hard at times with running.  I took a fibrosure test following a race by a few days and was unhappy to find elevated liver function scores in spite of (at least what I thought) was a decent diet.  In reading (well, I already knew it) I found that excercise (and the destruction of muscle cells thru that hard exertion) raises ones LFT's temporarily (maybe several days to a week?).  If that were the case..... and given repeated excercise for years I'm wondering about the apparent contradiction.  In my case the raised LFT's could be on top of already elevated LFT's from HCV but anyway...... what about extreme excercise for people infected with HCV?  Further..... since extreme weight loss or stress from excercise may also impact on ones immune system....where or how would one develop a sense of balance for excercise when infected with HCV?  

This is an area where many doctors really have no clue.  They don't know about diet, they don't know about excercise and they really don't know what happens when you factor these into creating a regimen for living with one's HCV.  Just "food for thought" on this "gorging on pig day" in the USA.

Bon appetite folks and thanks.

Willy

[jmjm530]

`y`e`s, i read `git`tlem`a`n`. a`nd her ``empah`si`s on` t`h`e s`o`-c`all`e`d `go`od `f`at``s. `````ho`we`v`er`,` when` `i ``in`t`rodu`ce`d ``g`ood` fa`t`s into my diet`,` my` cho`le``sterol wen`t u`p````. ````the`only `thin`g th`at red`uced i`t was```````````````````````````a `very l`o`w` fat` diet-`-` no `go`o`d `or b`ad fa`ts`. ````i` ``did a l`ot of exp`eriment`in`g.`````````````````````````````

[jmjm530]

`ev`en `the ``new pr`itikin i`nsti`tute are` `st`ar`ting to us`e ```good fats`` ho``wv`er `they `are al`os `s`tarting t`o us`e ``st`ati`ns as well....````````my guess is becau`se of comp`liance issue`s. in the` or`igina`l program, no``` fa`ts were introduced and stat`in``````````a`nd remarkable choleter`ol reductions were made piossible at Priti`kin institute `without statins. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

[jmjm530]

``t`he `mai`n problem with the pritikin diet as` I s`ee it is comp`liance. it` is very dif`ficult to limit f`ats to u`nder 1`0 ````````````````p`er cent of total c`alories, but` ``at` least` bas`e`d `on my` experienc`e, ```it` was t`he most` l`iver frie`ndly diet```be`caus`e of ```a com`bo of l`ow fat` and very lo`w protei``n, ``````t`he` t``a`k`u`harma `i`ndian`s in` me`xico are on` a `simi`l`ar diet` an`d `do `m`ar`at`ho`n r`u`n`ni`ng `con`te`n`st`s that l`ast f`o`r `days` `n`ot ho`ur`s. ````````````````````

[Willy50]

Dude....your keyboard is like going....Welsh or something.  I hope it's your keyboard and not your fingers spasming.  : )

As soon as I posted I noticed I spelled Pritikin (not kan) wrong.  Part of my point is that I wonder about the implications of having HCV when thrown into the mix of diet.  I believe that HR's point may be that we have less room for "fudge" (so to speak : )) than other less affected and inflicted people.  I wonder....is that also true for excercise?  I also would imagine that the answer is also true or false for people on a case by case basic but that we are asking generally.

It's yet another subject entirely..... but are some people's metabolisms or ability to process food changed by TX?  It seems that what was true for you pre TX has not seemed to be true for you post TX or am I incorrect?  Seems to me I've read this in other peoples posts here and there.

That may call for another different thread.  There is so much here already I don't want to divert it from your origional topic.

Best wishes,
willy

[jmjm530]

`demon pos`sesed key`boar`d y`es `.` ````````````````````````````````

[jmjm530]

an`other time, an`other keyboard, hap`p`y thanks`giving.``````````````````````````````````````

[Hepatitis Researcher]

I am working on a more complete, fundamentally presented answer, to the - obviously complex- diet problem.

For your rise in LFTs, Willy, on exercise, with the conclusion that exercise might be bad for the liver, there is a relatively simply answer, acutally posted a few days ago in some thread:

The ALT and AST are not just LFTs, but can be   and are enzymes released by exercise also from the muscles, not only the liver and  represent therefore also mild to moderate muscle injury , particularly when there is a mild chronic immune complex/generally immunstimulated  mediated myositis present as in chronic HCV in many cases.

So the rise in LFTs is explained - not by liver stress, but by ALT,AST released addtitionally from the muscle tissue, mildly injured by exercise in the setting of mild muscle inflammation.

Many docs dont know this, therefore there was once a whole article in hepatology addressed to this issue, to avoid false "liver injury diagnoses".

Moderate exercise is still recommended in chronic HCV and will not hurt the liver. LFT rises must be understood in the context above.

[gauf]

I understood Jims' entire post. I't ma'd'e 'pe'r'f'ect s'e'ns'e to m'e!    H'ap'p'y Th'a'nks'gi'v'i'n'g a'l'l!

[miked]

Gauf...that's funny.

Willy & jmjm...I agree with your point that Pritikin is hard to do 100%.  Pizza broke my two year Pritikin run.

Since then it's everything in moderation.  We eat lots of whole grains and fresh veggies.  We also eat ice cream and pizza on occasion.

I've posted before that I tend a large garden.  The only fertilizer that my food absorbs is horse poop (nitrogen sounds more appetizing!).  Hot pepper wax spray for insect control

My point is that good diet and exercise make me feel good.  Before tx I have like 0.5 liver damage.  I wonder if this is related to the food and workout?  

BTW; I ate like a pig today.

Mike

[jmjm530]

Well, I had both the zone and Pritkin for thanksgiving . 3-0-30-40 zone (thirty times to o much protein, thirty tgimes too much fat and thirty times too much carbs. and pritikin --all the carbs you can eat and then some. if they took my cholesterol right now, im afraid theyd call roto rooter. btw got a fix for my errant keyboard characgters. i clamped downthe backpspace key physically--only problem is i cant backspace to correct things.lol. slight eimprovement until i get this thing fixed. just cant believe i went back for thirds inlcluding thirds on cake, ice cream and pie . lol.

[Willy50]

Thanks for your answer.  It is what I feel from looking at myself and my blood scores but of course, I felt that this might be a good place to bring the topic up.  To recap what I feared versus what I now think I know;

While blood tests like AST and ALT can be used to test for liver distress they also reflect a broader range of possible damage.  It's my understanding that they can also or were once used as a cue of a possible heart attack.  As mentioned..... very rigorous exercise will also cause them to temporarily rise.  It might be more accurate to say that liver damage will generally cause a rise in AST and ALT but not all rises in AST/ALT can be attributed to damage in liver; they can be elsewhere in the body.

Also worth mentioning is that if one is going for any or many tests at the doctors....make sure that you follow the protocol prior to testing.  IN my case it was a tad foolish to run a flat out race and then go in for a fibrosure test a few days later.  My fibrosure test utilizes AST and ALT scores (and others as well) in an algorithm to approximate liver damage and inflamation (inflammation).  A situation where those scores are raised will skew the end result.  Another analogous situation might be getting tested after a night of drinking or acetaminophen use; your score will reflect a temporary and uncharacteristic rise which kind of defeats the purpose of getting tested, eh?

Seems like I've also taken other tests where I was not informed that I needed to fast ahead of time.  Maybe that was cholesterol and or triglycerides.

I still feel as if the Pritikin diet was a good place to start but lets face it...it was written several decades ago.  Since then much has been added to our knowledge about diet.  It is also important to consider that none of these diets were written for people with HCV.   We may have to do a better job of following good nutrition.  We as heppers may also have to really watch our sugar, fats and iron intake to name a few areas.  In general I feel that if we follow very general good nutrition most of us don't need a "special" diet.

Yet so few of us do....expecially on Thanksgiving and around holidays.
Yes.....I too went over the line today......

Willy

[merryBe]

I'm kinda concerned about diets protein levels being too high in anything right now,
but especially with the protein/urea ammonia issues.
Since some things require far more energy on the liver's part to digest than other things and since with this disease many are forced to take it easy.....(which after HR's explaination makes the muscle fatique all that much more understandable) I would think the protein requirement goes down if the muscles are being less utilized, less utilization means less need of repair/replacement.... therefore smaller amounts of protein may be fully adequate.

It's be interesting to see where
HR weighs in now on all this as he was a Zone guy a while back I think, but I am foggy today.


Jim

did you give up the Zone because of the 30 % fat or because of a fatty liver or both?



scratchinghead:

     If you do the "diet for a small planet" routine, which it sounds like you know about, you will still be experiencing some digestabilty/absorbability problems just because a plant source, complete amino acid chain or not, still has to be broken down from far less permeable membranes, (unless of course you have a bovine 4 stomach compartment in which case no problemo) as our dearly beloved Corn-Julio pointed out above what comes out unchanged did not absorb!!. (well some of the simple sugars do...butttt ......
    This is one reason why pure vegan peoples/countries are smaller by far as a rule; because the volumes required to be eaten to obtain the same nourishment, are far more humongous volume wise, and more than can be actaully consummed in many cases.
    Add to that the fact that depending on the bacterium in the gut one may be less efficient than one realizes and all are....on average an adult only absorbs 5% of what is eaten, but even a pristine child's gut is only at 15% absorption max) and you begin to see why all the alpine yodellers consumed dairy, and old cows. The energy requirements, especially for great exercise, tax not just ordinary muscles but the heart muscle as well.

    I was a vegetarian (not vegan) for many years, but saw both sides of this coin and the majority were getting some source advise, if any, that was highly questionable.
     There were those who maintained good health and those who failed to thrive and/or even caused their own demise through uninformed practices or silly booksellers with wacko theories),
so I think there's a case for looking into not just the quantity of complete protein chains, but their absorbability as well.
    Ovbiously the trick is getting nourishment both to be broken down adequately by the liver/ intestines/etc, but then also getting it through the intestinal wall is also as big an issue.
     There's also an issue regardless of source regarding fat/protein rations in that, given even the best source of protein, one could still starve to death minus any fat. Old time trappers, for instance, forced to eat only rabbit for a month die from starvation even on rich protein, because fat is also essential to health. We saw this dealth process also when folks when on liquid protein diets, again with no undersatnding of the complex metabolic processes. So vegan or animal diets can both produce ill health if one doesn't get all the essentials for optimum health.


I've had a couple friends die, and other almost die, of those two : one was an average uninformed joe, one a highly intelligent musician athletic man in the national spotlight. In each case neither understood more than a smattering of what protein restriction could mean long term.
    So while the focus has been on the down side of animal product, due cheifly to the types of fats and lipids involved, there is also a down side to total elimination of these sources.  The attachment to arterial walls not withstanding, as the healthiness issues are a function of both quantity, ratio to the omega's, saturated or not, hydrogenated or not, blood/vein "stickiness",not to mention how the body handles digestion itself and what enyzmes it produces and in what quantities..... and a few dozen more things.
Moderation is the key here in all things.

willy,
I'm feeling much better in several regards having cut out all the sugars, this is also an important key, simply sugars offer no nutrition but clog the blood and tissue with way too many empty calories.
basically, they sweet pickle us in our own juices.

goofydad
I love you man, don't ever go away!!  the chuckles are always welcome!
I'll be yer huckleberry and slip on that banana peel anyday!!!!!!!
Harpo Marx toots his horn!!!!