Finally, Keto is being recognized as valid and healthy!
jerryellis63012
Posts: 105 Member
Looks like the keto way of eating is finally growing legs and getting the recognition it so rightly deserves! http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?referrer=
0
Replies
-
Great article. Which I am going to show to my damn cardiologist the next time he scolds me for eating a pat of butter on my broccoli!0
-
IamUndrCnstruction wrote: »Great article. Which I am going to show to my damn cardiologist the next time he scolds me for eating a pat of butter on my broccoli!
Amen to that!0 -
It doesn't even look like it was all that high in fat...I wish they had the link to the study. Still, good news for our camp.
0 -
-
I would really like to read the whole thing though. It looks like the low-carb group was less than 40g/daily, but the blurb doesn't tell the other macros. That'll have to do. Thanks, Keith.
0 -
Yay! Awesome article. I'm printing that out and putting it on my fridge. I think I'll also take it with me to the doc's later this year.0
-
Our (American, I don't know about other countries) government has been quick to jump on the bandwagon of the results of researchers through the years and have terribly mislead many generations into chronic illnesses. Look at the poor egg and what has been done to it from the recommendations of researchers who now are recanting! Finding what works for YOU is key! Don't be one who jumps on the bandwagon too!
Glad to see LC and Keto being recognized, finally!0 -
I'm amused that as I opened up the article the song, "Our Demons" by Glitch Mob started to play, "Everybody's got a choice this time around."0
-
Our (American, I don't know about other countries) government has been quick to jump on the bandwagon of the results of researchers through the years and have terribly mislead many generations into chronic illnesses. Look at the poor egg and what has been done to it from the recommendations of researchers who now are recanting! Finding what works for YOU is key! Don't be one who jumps on the bandwagon too!
Glad to see LC and Keto being recognized, finally!
Technically, we actually weren't that fast, it just snowballed. The US didn't really get onto the "fat is bad" bandwagon until Ancel Keys became a board member on the AHA. Guy with agenda + prominent organization = ramming bills into and through Congress. Couple that with the fact that Congress openly admitted that they didn't have time to verify whether that information was actually true, and you end up with a lot of garbage.
Prior to that, the AHA, WHO, and US government largely ignored or dismissed Keys. The AHA knew where the real science sat (fun fact -- there are Diabetes diet books that date back to the 50s and earlier that subscribe a nearly ketogenic diet), at least until the late 50s (their "re-envisioning" of themselves and President Eisenhower's heart attack didn't help matters). Once he established himself in the AHA, though, everything went downhill.
What's really sad are the number of people in the comments saying things like "the NYT continues to offer dangerous misinformation" and "diet du jour, proceed at your own risk."0 -
Technically, we actually weren't that fast, it just snowballed. The US didn't really get onto the "fat is bad" bandwagon until Ancel Keys became a board member on the AHA. Guy with agenda + prominent organization = ramming bills into and through Congress. Couple that with the fact that Congress openly admitted that they didn't have time to verify whether that information was actually true, and you end up with a lot of garbage.
Prior to that, the AHA, WHO, and US government largely ignored or dismissed Keys. The AHA knew where the real science sat (fun fact -- there are Diabetes diet books that date back to the 50s and earlier that subscribe a nearly ketogenic diet), at least until the late 50s (their "re-envisioning" of themselves and President Eisenhower's heart attack didn't help matters). Once he established himself in the AHA, though, everything went downhill.[/quote]
Interesting info, thank you!0 -
Great article. There were two NYT comments that caught my eye. Here is the first:sandyssisterNJ
Ah, I finally found a reference to the number of carbs recommended, which, as another person stated, was less than 40 grams per day.
However, I also found this:
"For one, people on the low-carbohydrate diet didn't stick to it all that well. The regimen called for no more than 40 grams of carbohydrates a day -- the equivalent of about two slices of bread. But, by the end of the year, people in the low-carbohydrate group were averaging 127 grams of carbohydrates a day, noted Sonya Angelone, a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics....
Bazzano acknowledged, though, that many of the study participants didn't strictly follow their prescribed low-carbohydrate plan. "It was more moderate than that," she said. And she agreed that being "careful" about the amount and type of carbohydrates you eat is key -- as opposed to setting a rigid carbohydrate limit."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_148148.html
Sept. 4, 2014 at 9:08 a.m.
What do you all think of that comment, particularly the last quote, bold added by me.
Note the link no longer works. I'm just copying over what was in the comment.
0 -
And here is the other NYT comment that caught my eye:Maria Anderson MD FACCDenver, CO
This small study is to me analogous to comparing driving while a little drunk to driving without a seatbelt, finding that driving a little drunk is worse, then concluding that driving without a seatbelt is good for you. The "low fat" (30%) diet was not low fat (<10%). Both tested diets were versions of the Standard American Diet, the least healthy eating pattern. There is no need to pit two unhealthy sources of calories to see which "wins". A healthy diet is high in plants of all kinds, and thus high in fiber (neither of these diets was fiber-rich); truly low in salt (<2g), sugar/refined carbohydrates (<25g), and fat (<10%); and calorie appropriate. All of these elements are crucial to a healthy dietary pattern. While we know that the 1980's experiment of replacing fat in processed food with sugar was horrible for health, conversely replacing sugar with bacon might get you into my cardiology clinic, but it won't lead to wellness.
Sept. 4, 2014 at 1:57 p.m.
I've seen this type of objection before from people like T. Colin Campbell. Campbell argues, and I think people like Ornish and McDougall agree, that the ideal diet is not just a reduced fat version of SAD, but looks like this:Consume plant-based foods in forms as close to their natural state as possible (“whole” foods). Eat a variety of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts and seeds, beans and legumes, and whole grains. Avoid heavily processed foods and animal products. Stay away from added salt, oil, and sugar. Aim to get 80 percent of your calories from carbohydrates, 10 percent from fat, and 10 percent from protein. That’s it, in 66 words. In this book I call it the whole food, plant-based (WFPB) diet...
* Quote is from Campbell's book "Whole."
Are there good studies comparing a well implemented WFPB diet to an LC diet?
How would you respond to Campbell and Maria Anderson? (And what I'd love to find are some well crafted rebuttals, not just dismissive statements like "That's BS.")
0 -
As I've said before, the reason this debate rages on is because both sides are right.
The primary health issue is the chronic consumption of excess calories. Any lifestyle that avoids that is healthy.
Low-carb works best for people who are overweight and insulin resistant. It's fairly obvious that it would work better than a low fat diet for those people, since the main side-effect of IR is high blood sugar, and carbs directly impact blood sugar.
Long term studies show that entire populations can thrive on high-fat diets as well as high-carb diets. AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN A CHRONIC STATE OF EXCESS CALORIE CONSUMPTION.0 -
Many of these studies are trying to prove the end result they already have in mind. That's why you can find a truly scientific study that will tell you exactly what you want, and just as many studies that prove the opposite. Sadly they all have an agenda, power and money being at the heart of it. It would stand to reason that if 80% fat is not good for you ad stated by some, then 80% carb would not be good for you either.
It's understandable that the high carbohydrate diet would be pushed as there is a great deal of money to be made on mass produced grain products. There is a much higher profit margin, with a low overhead and has resulted in the growth in gmo usage to grow faster bigger more.
Hundreds of years ago humans did not have the easy accessibility of grains and breads like they do now. It would've been seasonal, with grain availability at times and meats and vegetables at other times.
To say that an over consumption of one is better than an over consumption of another doesn't mean that either is all right or all wrong.
I'd venture to say those with an open mind can see benefits in a balanced approach understanding that each individual may have different needs.0 -
As I've said before, the reason this debate rages on is because both sides are right.
The primary health issue is the chronic consumption of excess calories. Any lifestyle that avoids that is healthy.
Low-carb works best for people who are overweight and insulin resistant. It's fairly obvious that it would work better than a low fat diet for those people, since the main side-effect of IR is high blood sugar, and carbs directly impact blood sugar.
Long term studies show that entire populations can thrive on high-fat diets as well as high-carb diets. AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN A CHRONIC STATE OF EXCESS CALORIE CONSUMPTION.
Pretty much this, but also the healthy populations on both sides don't eat heavily processed foods. One of the fallacies put forth by Colin, Campbell, et al is lumping minimally processed meats with heavily processed meat products, then saying that meat is bad for you.0 -
Are there good studies comparing a well implemented WFPB diet to an LC diet?
The short answer is, "no." There aren't really any good studies comparing well implemented WFPB diets to LC diets. The problem usually falls with the "good studies" and "well implemented" components of that request.
"Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal WomenThe A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial" is one of the better ones, but it also suffers from critical flaws. This compared 4 diets, including Atkins and Ornish over a one year period.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916
My understanding of Ornish is that it's pretty close to a well implemented WFPB. Problem was compliance across all 4 groups. By the end of the year, the Atkins group was getting 35% of their calories from carbs (should have been less than 12.5% based on their instructions). The Ornish group was getting almost 30% of their calories from fat. That should have been 10% based on the instructions. Basically, each of these groups was eating three times more of the macro that was specifically limited.
The nice thing about this study is that it was aimed to be realistic. The women were given instruction from the book for that way. They had 8 weeks of lessons on how to do the diet properly. Then they were on their own to follow it correctly. That's more realistic than having your food choices controlled. In the end, the diets didn't end up that far apart in the macros.
BTW: Atkins pretty much "won" the battle of the 4, in just about every area that was statistically significant, even with the lack of compliance. But, because of that, this fails to really compare a LC diet to a WFPB diet.
Edit: I just looked at the Ornish breakdown. 99% of all the food I consume on a daily basis comes from the "Group 5: Least Healthful" section. Some of my rare foods fall into the Group 3: Intermediate section (mostly seafoods), and some of the other rare foods fall into the Group 4: Less Healthful section (chicken, more seafoods). Decaf coffee is apparently tolerable... but caffeinated didn't make the list at all.0 -
I like that article, but I feel like lc, and particularly lchf isn't really going to curry favor for a long time yet. That said, I will be showing that to my cardiologist next time I'm in, he's against the high fat nature of my diet. He thinks BPC is the devil's own creation, but his office manager drinks it.
0 -
Saw a PBS type roundtable discussion in 2003-04 (on youtube) with Taubes for LCHF, Ornish, and the AMA lady…they tore poor Taubes apart claiming NO proof , craziness, etc etc, on and on and on… I sat there just saying to myself.."Future Taubes will be a happy and proven man"…he humbly had to listen he was 'nothing' by the 'experts' who had a few years more time to push their diet over his ideas. They were supposed to go round the table at the end and say one important thing.Taubes went first, spoke beautifully, then Ornish used his time to lambaste Taubes, and the AMA/AHA lady jumped in with both her witchy boots and did the same thing!!! ..they could just not stand to see ANY of Taubes' well spoken points unvilfied..very childish behavior.0
-
Great article. There were two NYT comments that caught my eye. Here is the first:sandyssisterNJ
Ah, I finally found a reference to the number of carbs recommended, which, as another person stated, was less than 40 grams per day.
However, I also found this:
"For one, people on the low-carbohydrate diet didn't stick to it all that well. The regimen called for no more than 40 grams of carbohydrates a day -- the equivalent of about two slices of bread. But, by the end of the year, people in the low-carbohydrate group were averaging 127 grams of carbohydrates a day, noted Sonya Angelone, a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics....
Bazzano acknowledged, though, that many of the study participants didn't strictly follow their prescribed low-carbohydrate plan. "It was more moderate than that," she said. And she agreed that being "careful" about the amount and type of carbohydrates you eat is key -- as opposed to setting a rigid carbohydrate limit."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_148148.html
Sept. 4, 2014 at 9:08 a.m.
What do you all think of that comment, particularly the last quote, bold added by me.
Note the link no longer works. I'm just copying over what was in the comment.
Particularly that comment - I find that veggie related carbs don't affect me the same as bread or sugar carbs.... So I do buy into that somewhat. I can have 20 EXTRA veggie carbs with little to no impact, but 5-10 grams of bread/sugar carbs and I'm toast!0
