Good news for people who like eating fat!
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All the subjects had metabolic syndrome. Is it surprising that increasing carbs was bad for them?
I wonder why they did not do it on individuals with no metabolic syndrome?
Also, they said they changed their diets every three weeks, but I thought it takes four to six to see any appreciable change from dietary or marco changes…
Interesting, but I think the design has some flaws...0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Well, HERE'S the problem:This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center.
Follow the money, sheeple! No wonder the findings supported LCHF!
while it is a concern that those who sponsored the research can benefit from it does not automatically mean the research is faulty. Porsche and BMW spend millions on advertising and that does not make their claims of "great car" any less true.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All the subjects had metabolic syndrome. Is it surprising that increasing carbs was bad for them?
I wonder why they did not do it on individuals with no metabolic syndrome?
Also, they said they changed their diets every three weeks, but I thought it takes four to six to see any appreciable change from dietary or marco changes…
Interesting, but I think the design has some flaws...
Because it was a study on folks with metabolic syndrome? What's that in the U.S. 1 in 5? 1 in 3?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All the subjects had metabolic syndrome. Is it surprising that increasing carbs was bad for them?
I wonder why they did not do it on individuals with no metabolic syndrome?
Also, they said they changed their diets every three weeks, but I thought it takes four to six to see any appreciable change from dietary or marco changes…
Interesting, but I think the design has some flaws...
Because it was a study on folks with metabolic syndrome? What's that in the U.S. 1 in 5? 1 in 3?
You make too much sense.0 -
Agreed. I'd actually prefer if they used more than 16 subjects, too. I always have a problem with studies that use such a statistically small group of people.LolBroScience wrote: »I wonder what sort of results would come about if conducted on those who don't have metabolic disorders.
These results will help future researchers get funding for more adequate studies. They all have to start small. Nobody wants to spend money to test a thousand subjects unless they have some idea of whether the result is going to be worthwhile.0 -
Why the War on Fat Was a Huge Mistake
Top 8 Reasons Not to Fear Saturated Fat
Articles with citations.
Authority Nutrition is not an authority on nutrition. They are clearly of the low carb mentality and they cite (cherry pick) studies which support their stance. They promote that 'a low carb diet is the best option for people who want to lose weight, optimize health and lower the risk of disease.' It should exclude sugar, gluten, artificial sweeteners and processed foods.
For most people, this type of restrictive plan is unnecessary.
0 -
Science is weird, new studies don't often actually disprove old theories, mostly it's about providing a clearer picture.
I'm currently doing a degree in Health Sciences and right now I'm reading a book about heart diseases, and in it they say specifically a 'high fat' diet is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease BUT they use it interchangeably with 'high calorie', which is a better description because obviously it's not fat that makes you fat but excess calories, it just happens fat is particularly calorie dense.
The book is only from 2011 so it just goes to show demonising fat isn't an old-fashioned way of thinking.0 -
What a load of rot!
The fat you eat is the fat you wear!0 -
Eating fat doesn't make you fat, any more than eating bread. Everything breaks down to portion control.0
-
Moderation is key - too much fat can give you colon cancer0
-
awesome news!
*starts putting chunks of lard in my water like I always dream to do*0 -
-
Moderation is key - too much fat can give you colon cancer
Whoah. I'ma need a citation for that one. I could throw out "too much fat gives you brain cancer and botflies" too, eh?
And from what I've read, yes, ingested fat is immediately stored. The problem arises when it is never burned again. Eating low-carb (from a CICO sense) forces your stored fat to become your fuel.
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
Not to mention the whole pancreatic failure/insulin resistance thing. Oh, and new studies involving Alzheimer's Disease, starting to label it as a Type-3 diabetes - inarguably caused by excess starches and sugars.
So, cloogsy71 et al, If you are able to moderate your overall intake and keep your body in order, that's fine. Huzzah. But to crap on new discoveries simply because they're different from the old ones...
That's how science WORKS.
0 -
JenniDaisy wrote: »Science is weird, new studies don't often actually disprove old theories, mostly it's about providing a clearer picture.
I'm currently doing a degree in Health Sciences and right now I'm reading a book about heart diseases, and in it they say specifically a 'high fat' diet is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease BUT they use it interchangeably with 'high calorie', which is a better description because obviously it's not fat that makes you fat but excess calories, it just happens fat is particularly calorie dense.
The book is only from 2011 so it just goes to show demonising fat isn't an old-fashioned way of thinking.
Unfortunately, demonising fat is based on a discredited study which relied on cherry-picked data to support its findings, and became such a "given" that it's not surprising that it's taken so long to be turned around.0 -
The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.0
-
BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).
What I was responding to was your quote:
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
My point is that eating low carb does not eliminate an insulin response. If all you ate was fat, only then the insulin would be significantly reduced. Insulin is not the enemy. It has been demonized by many who now have faded into the woodwork.
Type one diabetics do have a tough time of it. While it is much easier to control the BG swings by eating a low carb diet, I fear that they may not be benefiting from the other food components due to the lack of insulin needed to assimilate them.-1 -
BlackTimber wrote: »What I was responding to was your quote:
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
My point is that eating low carb does not eliminate an insulin response. If all you ate was fat, only then the insulin would be significantly reduced. Insulin is not the enemy. It has been demonized by many who now have faded into the woodwork.
Type one diabetics do have a tough time of it. While it is much easier to control the BG swings by eating a low carb diet, I fear that they may not be benefiting from the other food components due to the lack of insulin needed to assimilate them.
Oh, sure - that makes sense. And I think on that point we actually agree.
My quote was about EXCESS insulin, not any and all insulin. It's the overproduction that causes a problem, and I will stand by my position that excess carbs leads to excess insulin leads to resistance. I have to say it's been very well documented.
I also don't think it's THE ENEMY, as many do. It's a tool, a hormone, absolutely necessary in a healthy body (as per your T1 diabetic point and their having to inject it or DIE).
The situation these days, however, is that the widespread standard and recommended diet - not to mention the hyperbole about having to eat low fat, and the resulting available "healthy" food - tends to burn it out, which is all kinds of bad.0 -
warblerofdoom wrote: »So eating chicken skin is OK now? I was taught to remove the skin.. it's a habit now.
If people only learn this, the world will be a better place.
(From a lover of roasted chicken with bones and skin!)0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).
I got nothing really to add to this conversation, but can I have a pound of beef sticks? I actually prefer jerky, but it gets stuck in my teeth and then makes me sad. :sad:
It does seem odd that the carb recommendations for type II diabetes is still so high. I would think a more balanced approach to macros would work better for them. I wouldn't think it would have to be low carb, but lower than currently recommended seems to make sense.0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).
I got nothing really to add to this conversation, but can I have a pound of beef sticks? I actually prefer jerky, but it gets stuck in my teeth and then makes me sad. :sad:
It does seem odd that the carb recommendations for type II diabetes is still so high. I would think a more balanced approach to macros would work better for them. I wouldn't think it would have to be low carb, but lower than currently recommended seems to make sense.
Actually, another poster addressed that a page back.
Basically the ADA hasn't caught up to current research.
[edit] Also: Costco is my friend with respect to beef sticks
0 -
BlackTimber wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).
What I was responding to was your quote:
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
My point is that eating low carb does not eliminate an insulin response. If all you ate was fat, only then the insulin would be significantly reduced. Insulin is not the enemy. It has been demonized by many who now have faded into the woodwork.
Type one diabetics do have a tough time of it. While it is much easier to control the BG swings by eating a low carb diet, I fear that they may not be benefiting from the other food components due to the lack of insulin needed to assimilate them.
One of the biggest issues I have with most studies and articles (and pretty much every criticism I've come across of low carb) is that they all conflate low carb and low fat. When you stay stuck in the mindset that fat is bad, then reduce carbs on top of that, all you're left with is protein. This is actually very bad for a variety of reasons, and for purposes of insulin and blood sugar control, counterproductive.
Thankfully, low carb does not necessitate high protein (nor should it). A proper low carb diet, especially for insulin control, is low carb, high fat, adequate protein. And yes, that means getting nearly all your calories from fat (a full ketogenic diet can be upwards of 80-90% fat). Generally speaking, the recommendations are only enough protein to maintain or build muscle (generally, around 100g, give or take), enough carbs to get necessary micronutrients that are difficult to obtain from non-plant sources (and to account for glycogen consumption from meats), and the rest from various fats. This setup minimizes the insulin response from food to only what's needed to handle the protein and muscle building/retention needs and the little bit of carbohydrates from non-starchy vegetables and incidental sugars and glycogen.
Also, protein generates an insulin response, yes, but unless you're getting all your protein from whey, that insulin response is a fraction of what it is from starches and sugars. This drastically reduces the amount of insulin in the body at any given time, even after eating.
I've never seen even the most adamant low-carb/keto proponents "demonize" insulin. In my experience, they've all acknowledged that its role is largely for building mass and that when insulin levels are elevated, it prevents the reduction of mass. They acknowledge that this is a double-edged sword -- on the one hand, it helps retain muscle, but on the other, excess insulin hinders fat loss. (It's possible that there have been people who demonize insulin, just as there are people who demonize animal products and fat and just about any other thing. However, the big names in LCHF -- the ones that people who follow this WOE follow and recommend -- do not.)
Also, it's not possible to completely eliminate insulin from the body, short of removing or killing the pancreas. Ketone production is regulated by insulin, as well, and the body can create the sugar it needs even in a diet completely devoid of carbs, and that production is regulated by insulin, as well. This is why ketone production goes down as carb (and to a lesser extent, protein) ingestion goes up, and why ketoacidosis doesn't happen in people who can create sufficient amounts of insulin (ie - the people who go on such diets in order to reduce their insulin levels).
And don't worry, there is still sufficient insulin in the body to assimilate protein (from what I've seen in my T1D friends who are keto, their basal or little bit of bolus insulin is sufficient -- none have reported loss of muscle mass or inability to gain muscle -- though I don't have exact figures to back it up, as to my knowledge, keto for T1D hasn't been studied much, and such specifics even less). A ketogenic diet is actually quite protein-sparing in the long run (there is a period where protein is catabolized, but it's during the transition period, when the body hasn't yet reached its full efficiency at relying on fat metabolism for fuel), in no small part due to using fat for the primary fuel, instead of sugar. Dr. Peter Attia has some awesome charts on his intake, weight, and athletic performance as he transitioned to a ketogenic diet.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).
What I was responding to was your quote:
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
My point is that eating low carb does not eliminate an insulin response. If all you ate was fat, only then the insulin would be significantly reduced. Insulin is not the enemy. It has been demonized by many who now have faded into the woodwork.
Type one diabetics do have a tough time of it. While it is much easier to control the BG swings by eating a low carb diet, I fear that they may not be benefiting from the other food components due to the lack of insulin needed to assimilate them.
One of the biggest issues I have with most studies and articles (and pretty much every criticism I've come across of low carb) is that they all conflate low carb and low fat. When you stay stuck in the mindset that fat is bad, then reduce carbs on top of that, all you're left with is protein. This is actually very bad for a variety of reasons, and for purposes of insulin and blood sugar control, counterproductive.
Thankfully, low carb does not necessitate high protein (nor should it). A proper low carb diet, especially for insulin control, is low carb, high fat, adequate protein. And yes, that means getting nearly all your calories from fat (a full ketogenic diet can be upwards of 80-90% fat). Generally speaking, the recommendations are only enough protein to maintain or build muscle (generally, around 100g, give or take), enough carbs to get necessary micronutrients that are difficult to obtain from non-plant sources (and to account for glycogen consumption from meats), and the rest from various fats. This setup minimizes the insulin response from food to only what's needed to handle the protein and muscle building/retention needs and the little bit of carbohydrates from non-starchy vegetables and incidental sugars and glycogen.
Also, protein generates an insulin response, yes, but unless you're getting all your protein from whey, that insulin response is a fraction of what it is from starches and sugars. This drastically reduces the amount of insulin in the body at any given time, even after eating.
I've never seen even the most adamant low-carb/keto proponents "demonize" insulin. In my experience, they've all acknowledged that its role is largely for building mass and that when insulin levels are elevated, it prevents the reduction of mass. They acknowledge that this is a double-edged sword -- on the one hand, it helps retain muscle, but on the other, excess insulin hinders fat loss. (It's possible that there have been people who demonize insulin, just as there are people who demonize animal products and fat and just about any other thing. However, the big names in LCHF -- the ones that people who follow this WOE follow and recommend -- do not.)
Also, it's not possible to completely eliminate insulin from the body, short of removing or killing the pancreas. Ketone production is regulated by insulin, as well, and the body can create the sugar it needs even in a diet completely devoid of carbs, and that production is regulated by insulin, as well. This is why ketone production goes down as carb (and to a lesser extent, protein) ingestion goes up, and why ketoacidosis doesn't happen in people who can create sufficient amounts of insulin (ie - the people who go on such diets in order to reduce their insulin levels).
And don't worry, there is still sufficient insulin in the body to assimilate protein (from what I've seen in my T1D friends who are keto, their basal or little bit of bolus insulin is sufficient -- none have reported loss of muscle mass or inability to gain muscle -- though I don't have exact figures to back it up, as to my knowledge, keto for T1D hasn't been studied much, and such specifics even less). A ketogenic diet is actually quite protein-sparing in the long run (there is a period where protein is catabolized, but it's during the transition period, when the body hasn't yet reached its full efficiency at relying on fat metabolism for fuel), in no small part due to using fat for the primary fuel, instead of sugar. Dr. Peter Attia has some awesome charts on his intake, weight, and athletic performance as he transitioned to a ketogenic diet.
Thanks for the excellent response! You're definitely a bit ahead of me in the diet study.
This is where I am coming from. I feel that a lot of the disagreement between individuals with different diet approaches is because they all work, at least some of the time. I personally am ketogenic for a month or two and then swing between levels of carbohydrates depending on the seasonal availability. At least that is my goal. It just seems absurd to me to eliminate a food source that your body is obviously well equipped to handle and toss is out the window.
Para 1. I never said that fat is bad. Do you mean insulin control for a Type II diabetic? It doesn't matter to anyone with a normal insulin response and glucose control.
Para 2. As you can see above I am familiar with ketogenic diets. And I personally feel that there is a lot of good there. You again are trying to minimize the insulin response. Why?
Para 3. Pretty much correct as far as I know.
Para 4. Gary Taubes may have been the first and many others followed. And you are doing it here. As you said, without insulin you're dead. If you are insulin resistant and consume a lot of insulin producing foods then you will tend to gain weight.
Para 5. No questions
Para 6. my daughter has been a type 1 for about 7 years. We have found that a low carb diet definitely makes it easier to have decent control. We have not tried a ketogenic diet yet. Maybe we will over the summer.0 -
I think moderation for all the things is the prudent respponse to this knowledge.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess I don't get this comment. Given that science is always "learning something new", do we ignore all science and do what we've always done?redfisher1974 wrote: »Whats proven today will be dis-proven tomorrow... Doctors use to think smoking was good for you....
0 -
-
-
I also feel I should confess I was eating cracked wheat sourdough toast while reading this thread. A lot.0
-
MyChocolateDiet wrote: »I also feel I should confess I was eating cracked wheat sourdough toast while reading this thread. A lot.
ZOMG of all the things I miss, sourdough is close to the top of the list.
Sourdough toast with butter? HEAVEN!0 -
I sure hope so.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions