I had uremia at CKD3a/b (uremia =higher levels of urea than there ought to be present in your blood). I was at 13.5 when the normal range is 2.5 to 7.8 (thankfully, I'm now at 6.4 due to diet). Because I had uremia at CKD 3a/b, I assumed everyone else would have some sort of uremia at CKD 3a/b.
When I first read about low protein (or very low protein + keto acid) diets, it made sense that such diets were a "good thing" given that:
- uremia is kidney damaging.
- more protein consumption translates into more serum urea (waste from protein metabolism in your blood) .. and vice versa.
Thus: IF you eat less protein THEN you will produce less urea AND SO your uremia improves AND SO you stave off dialysis.
-
But over this last while I've come across folk with CKD 3/4 who DON'T have uremia. A lady on a Facebook kidney group today for instance: 36 yrs old and just diagnosed with CKD 4. She's a nurse. The only thing "out" in her bloods is creatinine. Nothing else: no uremia, urine fine, nothing. There have been others like her.
It might make sense for her to go on a plant-based diet alright. But would it make any sense for her to go on a low or very low protein diet?
If so, why so? What, or rather, from where, does the benefit of a (very) low protein diet accrue to someone who hasn't got uremia?
(NB: I mean low protein only. Plant based diets tend to be lower protein but I'm not questioning the benefit of plant based diets. Just low protein, whether plant or animal or both)
(A somewhat technical aside occurs to me: the research into (very) low protein diets involves CKDers being recruited for the research. Folk (at stage 3 for example) are recruited, split into groups and subjected to different diets. The results of the groups are analysed and graphed. The trials don't (that I recall) talk of specifically recruiting CKDers with uremia. It's just CKDers
It follows that IF folk without uremia are recruited AND a low protein diet has no beneficial effect on them (because the only benefit of such diets comes from "curing" uremia) THEN the positive result obtained from the group ought to be assigned only to the "uremaics". That is to say, the TOTAL positive result of the group ought to be "credited" only to the uremiacs within that group.
Which means the positive results are even more positive .. but only for the uremiacs. The non-uremiacs obtained no benefit from the (very) low protein diets. They just appeared to do so, being bundled in with those actually getting all the benefit: the uremiacs.
If you catch my drift?)