I have, for many years, leaned towards a vegetarian type of diet, with the occasional chicken and fish. However, while on treatment I started craving meat. So, I listened to my body and have been eating red meat. Amazing how the body knows what it needs.. we just need to listen.
Thank you so much for this information, very interesting. When I found that it could take days to weeks to digest red meat we stopped red meat and pork, still have other things but it didn't sound good to me.
Good luck Take Care
Thanks but I don't see 'George' as an expert, on what I should do.
I am my own expert on me.
I trust my hepatologist to guide me towards life with a healthy liver.
Anyone can write blog, say what they like~doesn't make it true, or true for all.
That shoe doesn't fit me.
Glad I could spark your interest..
"Possibly the bad news ..isn"t (sic) bad news for everyone.."
So one shoe doesn't fit all?
That is really interesting.
hate to bring bad news but it is what it is. Pork Consumption and Liver Cirrhosis
Pork consumption has a strong epidemiological association with cirrhosis of the liver.
Personally I don"t know enough about this topic to really comment intelligently..however I would say I have had HCV for 36 years ..eat basically a relatively sound diet from all the different food groups ,including pork and I have ealy stage 1 fibrosis.
Possibly the bad news ..isn"t bad news for everyone..
Best to you and your husband..
Here is a section taken from the "Perfect Health Diet" website under the title, "Did Leviticus 11:7 Have It Right?" ----Author- Paul Jaminet (I know his wife contributes to his blog also) The blank spaces are where the graphs are. If you are interested, you should take a look because I found them pretty plain and when I saw it, I knew that bacon was no longer welcome at our house. I hate to bring bad news but it is what it is.
Pork Consumption and Liver Cirrhosis
Pork consumption has a strong epidemiological association with cirrhosis of the liver. Startlingly, pork may be even more strongly associated with alcoholic cirrhosis than alcohol itself!
The evidence was summarized by Francis Bridges in a recent (2009) paper , building on earlier work by Nanji and French . A relation between pork consumption and cirrhosis of the liver is apparent across countries and has been consistently maintained for at least 40 years.
Here is the correlation between pork consumption and mortality from liver cirrhosis in 2003 :
The correlation coefficient of 0.83 is extremely high – rarely seen in epidemiology. Correlation coefficients range from -1.0 to 1.0, and a coefficient of 1.0 would indicate that cirrhosis mortality was strictly proportional to pork consumption. The very low p-value confirms the statistical association.
Here is the relation between alcohol consumption and mortality from liver cirrhosis:
The correlation coefficient is lower than for pork consumption.
In epidemiological studies, beef, lamb, and pork are often grouped together as “red meat.” However, this may conceal differences between pork and the ruminant meats. Bridges found that beef actually appeared protective against cirrhosis:
Could someone please simplify for me please :-)
Should I take a fish oil vitamin or what?
Maybe George will be back by sometime and can give you some feedback. The stats we saw made pork look pretty guilty. We will miss bacon but at this point we've both decided it isn't worth the risk for Joe. I wouldn't be so cruel as to cook bacon and tell him he can't eat it...it smells so good. Bacon was way too salty for him anyway and makes ascites worse.
Coffee smells good too and he can have all he wants. :>)
Have a great day,
Not to be contradictory but just as a reminder that we are all different,
I never stopped eating pork, fresh pork, not processed or salted, while sick with cirrhosis. Most my protein came from chicken, fish and tofu and eggs but I ate pork as well.
Never got cancer despite almost dying.
Years ago, we raised our own pork. The meat was entirely different. Personally I wonder if the 'problem' with pork, isn't pork per se but how it's raised, what it's fed, etc.
Organic and close to the source is always going to be the healthiest choice no matter what the food.
I want to add a caveat to the above discussion. Pork is not a low carb food that I give Joe anymore because it has been linked pretty heavily to cirrhosis and liver cancer. Even though George didn't include it in his above post, I first learned of it from him. Paul Jaminet has a blog called The Perfect Health Diet and he is doing a series on the subject of pork and George H is mentioned there also because he has gathered a great deal of incriminating evidence that puts a big stamp of disapproval of pork as a liver friendly food. There are some scarey graphs and stats to look at if you are interested.
I'm getting ready to make Joe a fluffy omelette whipped up with a splash of cream and cooked in some butter...mm-good!
In case others aren't aware, George is gifted in the area of research and has built up a lot of information pointing to a lower in carb/higher saturated fat diet as beneficial for HCV and cirrhosis. His own liver health has increased significantly.
My husband has benefited from his knowledge. I really respect his work. It basically points to what many are referring to as a paleo diet although people's definition of that term varies widely. George has summed it up very succinctly above as to what is showing itself to be beneficial to HCV/cirrhosis/fibrosis. Foods with the least amount of processing seem to be the way to go which is not surprising.
My husband isn't very compliant with all this but he has shifted heavily towards these chages and even giving that much has shown benefit.
I think Julia Child was right when she said it was ridiculous to be afraid of our food.
Being afraid of your food can not be healthy for you!
There are two new new medical studies from the US; one shows that high-fat diets help burn liver fat, the other shows that low-fat diets are much more likely to cause fatty liver and inflammation.
If you try to avoid fat, you will eat more carbohydrate, and you'll get fewer nutrients with that. Animal fat supplies vit A, D, K2 and selenium and these are all things that get depleted in hepatitis, and depletion is a risk factor for HCC.
I think, along with Paul Jaminet and Kurt Harris, that there are three toxic nutrients:
Fructose - from sugar, HFCS, fruit juice (the amount in most fruit is OK in "moderation", whatever that means)
Wheat (and maybe other grains)
Omega 6 oils (other than olive oil which is only 9-11% - which would still be too high without the antioxidants of CPEV).
I am also concerned about galactose from milk, don't recommend low-fat milk or large amounts of milk other than butter, cream and cheese.
But I have less evidence for this.
so the frenchies can tarry at the wine trough as long as Bessy comes along???
but hey, lets get real, the long and short of it is the body uses different lipid chains to correct different problems.
Example...for years I had untreated thyroid disease and craved coconut...
then I read all hypothyroid people crave it...coconut, they all do crave it.
couldn't let it go,,,so studied it, and found out that high chain omegas correct thyroid deficiency....somehow, the body knows what the mind does not. Found this out in pubmed.
this same thing has been observed in animals ad nauseum by dept. of agriculture, animals know when they are low in a mineral for example, and go graze on the thing highest in that mineral....how do they know??? We are fearfully and wonderfully made!,
now I won't feel so guilty when I eat eggs...and butter...everyday. (one weakness I cannot quit).
But I think we need to look carefully at the other antioxidants, like cucurmin, like dashan, etc. If we can reduce inflammation without the extra fat it will be better for our heart and other systems don't you think?? Certainly our waistlines!!
I'm not up on the whole of the mechanism, but my guess is any fat is going to reduce oxidation by it's nature, HOWEVER....when we speak of saturated fats, they do NOT have one problem that oils often have, the high omegas don't oxidize at the same rate.
Things like cocoa butter, cocomut oil, etc can last years without refrigeration and without becoming rancid...they are much more stable that way.
And butter of course, and meat as well are much FRESHER fats....meat is consumed within days of slaughter, butter also has a high turnover rate....whereas oils can sit on the shelf for months or longer...and the "idiot health food nuts" made the industry remove the antioxidants BHA and BHT years ago. Which combined means your corn oil etc is much more likely to have a high level on oxidation when you use it....(unless like me you keep it refrigerated and also add your own BHT as I do).
My guess is that this rancidity is the greater reason that the saturates scored better....not because they are better as much as they are fresher and ergo have less peroxide, less free radicals will be formed ergo, and less irritation and inflammation, whereas any amount of rancidity will make any oil or grain more dangerous than healthful.
It's too bad the researchers did not know about the rancidity potion in this equation.
It's too bad the public doesn't know either. This is one case where the presevative in the oils made them far more healthful, but as usual the bigger the whiners, the more our government caves and gives the little pissants what they think is right...even though in this case, their enlightment had nothing to do with chemistry, and they've made us all a lot sicker as a result of their ignorance. Nothing is harder on the body than peroxide.
Hope you guys are doing OK.
I'm with you. I don't really think that Joe should be privy to that information either. Yummy fats, like butter, might be a slippery slope...pun intended :>)
"He would have added cherry pie and any day now there will be another article suggesting cherry pie would have helped too. :>)"
That really made me smile! All we can do is work with what we know. I know if my husband were left to his own devices and I wasn't doing all this research, he would probably have convinced me that all fruit pies are good for cirrhosis! ;)
Regardless of points or not for trying, your efforts on Joe's behalf have my utmost respect and admiration.
mhudnall: Counter-intuitive but interesting data for sure. Thanks for the article. Though I must admit I'll keep it to myself quietly for comfort -- sharing this info with my cirrhotic husband who already has a debilitating weakness for butter-made confections may be too much of a good thing!
"The things that drives me nuts (no pun) is some of the counter-intuitivness of some of this stuff. You'd think, in general, that for human purposes that derivitives of plants = good and derivitives of animals = bad (again, in general). "
Very good point/advice. It's important to think carefully about what we put in out body, especially when dealing with a chronic disease. 3 cups of coffee a day maybe okay if you don't have high blood pressure, 10 cups of coffee a day probably not good for anyone. Just jumping on the antifibrotic band wagon blindly is not a wise idea. (not saying anyone did)
"Omega-3 fatty acids can be found in far less foods than omega-6 fatty acids. Many people have a very low intake of omega-3s. Since omega-6 fatty acids compete with omega-3 fatty acids for use in the body, it is important to take these fatty acids in the proper ratio. The World Health Organization recommends a ratio of 5:1 to 10:1 omega-6 to omega-3. While a ratio between 1:1 and 4:1 is often considered as being optimal. Since most diets are very rich in omega-6 and low in omega-3, the ratio is often somewhere between 10:1 and 20:1. This is especially a problem with diets that are high in processed foods and oils. Oils like corn, safflower, sunflower and cottonseed are usually low in omega-3s. To balance the fatty acids out, it is important to eat a diet that is low in processed foods and with fat mainly coming from omega-3 fatty acids."
The omega 3,6,9 fatty acids are unsaturated. The harmful effects of saturated fatty acids, the fats studied in the tests above, have actually been overestimated, in my opinion. For instance, one of the amazing benefits of coconut oil include the fact that it helps burn fat, not accumulate it, in the body.
But all things in moderation...
For fats, you need the proper proportion of omega 3, 6 and 9. I have to look up what is the ratio, but an overabundance of omega six is the worst. Steatosis (intracellular fat) is mostly composed of omega sixes. A certain percentage of omega sixes convert directly to arachidonic acid. The arachidonic acid pathway is the biochemical textbook definition of the inflammatory pathway.
Look at this quote from one of the above studies. "The degree of histopathological abnormality correlated with the linoleic acid content of fat in the diet (tallow 0.7%, lard 2.5%, corn oil 56.6%)."
So flax is much closer to the proper proportion of the three omega fatty acids, while vegetable and corn are heavily composed of omega sixes to the exclusion of the others. But no omega sixes is definitely bad for you too. You need the proper proportion.
I'll look it up and post it later.
You brought back an old memory. Joe and I were dating in 1982 and he was stocking and sweeping at Walmart while working on his degree. One night he just happened to mention that he ate an entire box of chocolate covered cherries for his dinner break at Walmart. I knew then that he needed me, bad. :>I
About a week ago I was on some nutrition website (not sure which one) and I was looking at some of the health traits of various fruits. Mostly, I was researching "glucose friendly" stuff but several other attributes were discussed too. Although I can't find the site right now my impression was that cherries were more good than bad. Around my house milk chocolate covered cherries are a bit hit and I'm glad that the wife and the kids attack them like mosquitoes on an open cut. When it comes to sweet snacks "more for them and less for me" is probably a good thing for me. Until someone mad a mistake and bought dark chocolate covered cherries. I'm the only one who like dark chocolate.
So my dilemma, convince myself that dark chocolate is a beneficial as coffee and consider eating the glycemic bombs as theraputic or act wisely and eat a chunk of cheddar cheese instead. Sometimes you just can't win.
I ain't no rat and I ain't too keen on all that saturated fat and neither is my weight nor my cholesterol
"And huge amounts of anything might have massive unintended consequences."
Now you tell me.
I just had a 1/4 cup of bacon fat poured on top of my morning oatmeal. : (