Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
research: high-fat low-carb diets could mean significant heart risk
ndj1979
Posts: 29,136 Member
I found this article interesting and it links to the study referenced. Here is a snippet:
The research study, conducted among a group of obese pre-diabetic adults, compared the results of following a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet (20% fat, 60% carbohydrate) with a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet (60% fat, 20% carbohydrate). It showed that in all areas, other than the risk of cardiovascular disease, the diets have equal health benefits. The same amount of weight is lost; there is no significant difference in the body’s glucose uptake or production; and meal tolerance-related insulin secretion is comparable. However, the study revealed a significant difference in overall systemic arterial stiffness and pointed to increased cardiovascular risk factors from high-fat low-carbohydrate diets.
Interesting, as our LCHF friends like to tell us that there is absolutely no reason to worry about exceeding your fat minimum by 50% of the RDA; however, don't eat carbs because those are bad and will lead to weight gain.
Link to full article:
http://www.sugarnutrition.org.uk/news/new-research-high-fat-low-carb-diets-could-mean-significant-heart-risk/
Link to Study (at bottom of article)
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2009/08/23/db09-0098.abstract
discuss…..
The research study, conducted among a group of obese pre-diabetic adults, compared the results of following a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet (20% fat, 60% carbohydrate) with a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet (60% fat, 20% carbohydrate). It showed that in all areas, other than the risk of cardiovascular disease, the diets have equal health benefits. The same amount of weight is lost; there is no significant difference in the body’s glucose uptake or production; and meal tolerance-related insulin secretion is comparable. However, the study revealed a significant difference in overall systemic arterial stiffness and pointed to increased cardiovascular risk factors from high-fat low-carbohydrate diets.
Interesting, as our LCHF friends like to tell us that there is absolutely no reason to worry about exceeding your fat minimum by 50% of the RDA; however, don't eat carbs because those are bad and will lead to weight gain.
Link to full article:
http://www.sugarnutrition.org.uk/news/new-research-high-fat-low-carb-diets-could-mean-significant-heart-risk/
Link to Study (at bottom of article)
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2009/08/23/db09-0098.abstract
discuss…..
0
Replies
-
I don't know that I'd call it "new" (appears to have been published in 2009 if I'm reading correctly?)
But I can't say as I've seen this one before...so it is new to me.
Without reading the full study - I wonder, how do they go about measuring arterial stiffness?0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I don't know that I'd call it "new" (appears to have been published in 2009 if I'm reading correctly?)
But I can't say as I've seen this one before...so it is new to me.
Without reading the full study - I wonder, how do they go about measuring arterial stiffness?
New In the past seven years...0 -
"Research Design and Methods: We investigated a low-fat (20% fat, 60% carbohydrate) versus a low-carbohydrate (60% fat, 20% carbohydrate) weight reduction diet " so not quite what most would call LCHF.The change in overall systemic arterial stiffness, was, however,
significantly different between diets (P=0.04); this reflected a significant decrease in
augmentation index following the low-fat diet, compared to a non-significant increase within the
low-carbohydrate group.
OK, so nothing deteriorated in the lower carb group but the high carb group saw a change in this parameter.
The triglycerides dropped markedly on low carb
Triglycerides (mmol/l) 1.59 ± 0.55 0.91 ± 0.33 <0.01
as these are generally associated with heart disease this looks like a benefit.
@psulemon should enjoy the funding
This study was supported by RRG
5.42 (PI SJH) from the Northern Ireland
Department of Health and Social Services
Research and Development Office and by an
unrestricted research grant from The Sugar
Bureau (UK).0 -
"Research Design and Methods: We investigated a low-fat (20% fat, 60% carbohydrate) versus a low-carbohydrate (60% fat, 20% carbohydrate) weight reduction diet " so not quite what most would call LCHF.The change in overall systemic arterial stiffness, was, however,
significantly different between diets (P=0.04); this reflected a significant decrease in
augmentation index following the low-fat diet, compared to a non-significant increase within the
low-carbohydrate group.
OK, so nothing deteriorated in the lower carb group but the high carb group saw a change in this parameter.
The triglycerides dropped markedly on low carb
Triglycerides (mmol/l) 1.59 ± 0.55 0.91 ± 0.33 <0.01
as these are generally associated with heart disease this looks like a benefit.
@psulemon should enjoy the funding
This study was supported by RRG
5.42 (PI SJH) from the Northern Ireland
Department of Health and Social Services
Research and Development Office and by an
unrestricted research grant from The Sugar
Bureau (UK).
haha, nice.
Tagging to read later.0 -
The study mentions " Furthermore the type of fat in a low-carbohydrate diet i.e. saturated/trans fat versus mono/polyunsaturated fat may be important". I have to wonder if the LCHF group had more unsaturated fat and less saturated fat whether the outcome would have been different.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »The study mentions " Furthermore the type of fat in a low-carbohydrate diet i.e. saturated/trans fat versus mono/polyunsaturated fat may be important". I have to wonder if the LCHF group had more unsaturated fat and less saturated fat whether the outcome would have been different.
@yarwell had a study that showed that at one point. Funny as it was just mentioned about funding source. The one he's referenced before was done by the Atkins instituted. It featured maintenance calorie diets were LCHF showed improvements in triglycerides I believe, but I think not LDL, and an increased HDL, if I remember the studys' results. The buried lead is that the diet was rather high in mono and poly unsaturated fats compared to the control diet. Still, it would tend to indicate a LCHF emphasizing the unsaturated fats will improve lipid profile.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The study mentions " Furthermore the type of fat in a low-carbohydrate diet i.e. saturated/trans fat versus mono/polyunsaturated fat may be important". I have to wonder if the LCHF group had more unsaturated fat and less saturated fat whether the outcome would have been different.
@yarwell had a study that showed that at one point. Funny as it was just mentioned about funding source. The one he's referenced before was done by the Atkins instituted. It featured maintenance calorie diets were LCHF showed improvements in triglycerides I believe, but I think not LDL, and an increased HDL, if I remember the studys' results. The buried lead is that the diet was rather high in mono and poly unsaturated fats compared to the control diet. Still, it would tend to indicate a LCHF emphasizing the unsaturated fats will improve lipid profile.
I believe you are correct.
IRT the bold, I think that is one of the main reasons why the Mediterranean diet is ranked as one of the healthiest diets.0 -
Hmmmmm.... all blood markers improve on low carb, high fat diet, yet deteriorate on high carb, low fat diets....yet we are to believe this "study"??? I think not.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The study mentions " Furthermore the type of fat in a low-carbohydrate diet i.e. saturated/trans fat versus mono/polyunsaturated fat may be important". I have to wonder if the LCHF group had more unsaturated fat and less saturated fat whether the outcome would have been different.
@yarwell had a study that showed that at one point. Funny as it was just mentioned about funding source. The one he's referenced before was done by the Atkins instituted. It featured maintenance calorie diets were LCHF showed improvements in triglycerides I believe, but I think not LDL, and an increased HDL, if I remember the studys' results. The buried lead is that the diet was rather high in mono and poly unsaturated fats compared to the control diet. Still, it would tend to indicate a LCHF emphasizing the unsaturated fats will improve lipid profile.
So we have two studies with polar opposite "unrestricted" funding sources both finding reduced triglycerides on an LCHF diet. Sounds like a conclusion.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The study mentions " Furthermore the type of fat in a low-carbohydrate diet i.e. saturated/trans fat versus mono/polyunsaturated fat may be important". I have to wonder if the LCHF group had more unsaturated fat and less saturated fat whether the outcome would have been different.
@yarwell had a study that showed that at one point. Funny as it was just mentioned about funding source. The one he's referenced before was done by the Atkins instituted. It featured maintenance calorie diets were LCHF showed improvements in triglycerides I believe, but I think not LDL, and an increased HDL, if I remember the studys' results. The buried lead is that the diet was rather high in mono and poly unsaturated fats compared to the control diet. Still, it would tend to indicate a LCHF emphasizing the unsaturated fats will improve lipid profile.
So we have two studies with polar opposite "unrestricted" funding sources both finding reduced triglycerides on an LCHF diet. Sounds like a conclusion.
The replacing saturated fats in the diet with other sources of calories tends to improve lipid profiles? Particularly replacement with poly and mono unsaturated? I'd support that conclusion.0 -
LOL. You say that triglycerides are unrelated to carbohydrate intake ? Evidence ?
"carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584104
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/12/2/94.abstract (diabetics) 40% vs 60% carbs crossover same sat/polyunsat ratio triglycerides +30% on higher carb.
Maybe there's a threshold where this starts, be good to know for health.0 -
LOL. You say that triglycerides are unrelated to carbohydrate intake ? Evidence ?
"carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584104
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/12/2/94.abstract (diabetics) 40% vs 60% carbs crossover same sat/polyunsat ratio triglycerides +30% on higher carb.
Maybe there's a threshold where this starts, be good to know for health.
Wasn't my claim, nor anyone else's that I see. I just wasn't extrapolating it from the studies mentioned. I'd say that replacing non-fiber carbs with mono and poly unsaturated fats has a similar lipid improvement effect. Though I'd expect the lipid effect to be more exercise / activity level dependent an effect for carbohydrates than for saturated fats.0 -
Here's another with 11/12 men on a 2-week Atkins induction program reducing a measure of CVD risk. One guy went the other way but details not presented.
"After 14 days, BMI and triglycerides decreased significantly, while HDL-C increased."
Yeah, BMI and triglcyerides improved. I'm actually surprised the 12th guy had issues if his BMI dropped too.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Tagging to read later.0
-
-
I think it is interesting that they noticed a difference in arterial stiffness in 14 days, but sample size is too small, and arterial stiffness following a short diet intervention period isn't exactly something you can extrapolate to equate to CVD risk. Also, one study's findings do not mean a thing until they are replicated.
Always be cautious on studies of diet and especially on the media's overstating of the results. Diet is very hard to accurately measure because people misreport it (among other problems).0 -
I think it is interesting that they noticed a difference in arterial stiffness in 14 days, but sample size is too small, and arterial stiffness following a short diet intervention period isn't exactly something you can extrapolate to equate to CVD risk. Also, one study's findings do not mean a thing until they are replicated.
Always be cautious on studies of diet and especially on the media's overstating of the results. Diet is very hard to accurately measure because people misreport it (among other problems).
that is why I threw out for discussion ...0 -
I found this article interesting and it links to the study referenced. Here is a snippet:
The research study, conducted among a group of obese pre-diabetic adults, compared the results of following a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet (20% fat, 60% carbohydrate) with a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet (60% fat, 20% carbohydrate). It showed that in all areas, other than the risk of cardiovascular disease, the diets have equal health benefits. The same amount of weight is lost; there is no significant difference in the body’s glucose uptake or production; and meal tolerance-related insulin secretion is comparable. However, the study revealed a significant difference in overall systemic arterial stiffness and pointed to increased cardiovascular risk factors from high-fat low-carbohydrate diets.
Interesting, as our LCHF friends like to tell us that there is absolutely no reason to worry about exceeding your fat minimum by 50% of the RDA; however, don't eat carbs because those are bad and will lead to weight gain.
Link to full article:
http://www.sugarnutrition.org.uk/news/new-research-high-fat-low-carb-diets-could-mean-significant-heart-risk/
Link to Study (at bottom of article)
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2009/08/23/db09-0098.abstract
discuss…..I found this article interesting and it links to the study referenced. Here is a snippet:
The research study, conducted among a group of obese pre-diabetic adults, compared the results of following a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet (20% fat, 60% carbohydrate) with a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet (60% fat, 20% carbohydrate). It showed that in all areas, other than the risk of cardiovascular disease, the diets have equal health benefits. The same amount of weight is lost; there is no significant difference in the body’s glucose uptake or production; and meal tolerance-related insulin secretion is comparable. However, the study revealed a significant difference in overall systemic arterial stiffness and pointed to increased cardiovascular risk factors from high-fat low-carbohydrate diets.
Interesting, as our LCHF friends like to tell us that there is absolutely no reason to worry about exceeding your fat minimum by 50% of the RDA; however, don't eat carbs because those are bad and will lead to weight gain.
Link to full article:
http://www.sugarnutrition.org.uk/news/new-research-high-fat-low-carb-diets-could-mean-significant-heart-risk/
Link to Study (at bottom of article)
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2009/08/23/db09-0098.abstract
discuss…..
0 -
I am less hungry when I'm on more fats lower carbs than vice versa.0
-
14 Days? They should have renamed the study "The effects of 12 adults when they lose a bunch of water weight and a significant less amount of fat."
the discussion is about the triglycerides or heart risk, please don't divert.
What is the effect of water weight on triglycerides, or is that not in the playbook.0 -
LOL at all the denial.
So, half of a group of obese diabetics were put on a carb restricted diet and the other half on calorie restriction. After the initial study period many of the controls switched over to the carb restricted diet. Of the five controls that did not switch four suffered at least one heart event in the 4 yr follow up and two died. 80% prevalence of heart disease.
In the carb restricted originals and convertors two patients had heart related events.Cardiovascular disease
We have examined medical charts for episodes of cardiovascular disease beginning 3 months after the initiation of the diet therapy.
Among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group (41 months observations time) and among the 7 controls that changed from the high-carbohydrate diet to the opposite (33 months observations time) – totalling 23 patients – 2 patients have suffered cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart failure respectively (8.5%. 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): 1.0–28.0). One patient without known cardiac disease has died suddenly. Autopsy showed no sign of coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke. The cause of death unknown but assumed to be general atherosclerosis.
As for the 3 controls who switched diet at later dates, there has been no occurrence of cardiovascular disease.
Four patients (80%. CI 95%: 28.3–99.5) among the 5 controls that never attempted any change of diet have suffered several heart infarctions followed by heart failure. Two of them have died from their heart disease (p = 0.025. Fischer Exact).
http://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-14
So this carb restricted diet study clearly found no issues with heart risk over an extended follow-up, unlike the control diet with its body count.0 -
Another carbohydrate restriction study in diabetics, with a control, not aiming for weight loss (though some happened in both groups). http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375.full
A is the control diet, B is the 20% carb low GL intervention, before and after 5 weeks. The fasting Triglycerides were 40% lower on the low carb arm :
0 -
Copy of an old discussion from when the OP study was published is at http://www.michaelmooney.net/SugarIndustryAttacksLowCarbs.html0
-
I think it is interesting that they noticed a difference in arterial stiffness in 14 days, but sample size is too small, and arterial stiffness following a short diet intervention period isn't exactly something you can extrapolate to equate to CVD risk. Also, one study's findings do not mean a thing until they are replicated.
Always be cautious on studies of diet and especially on the media's overstating of the results. Diet is very hard to accurately measure because people misreport it (among other problems).
One could have one's own arterial stiffness measured at the start of, and then a few weeks into, a dietary change. It can be done non-invasively. That's a lot sooner than you can measure triglycerides and cholesterol, and while there is a fair amount of disagreement over optimal cholesterol levels, I haven't heard of anyone saying that increased arterial stiffness is good.0 -
I cant see any reasoning behind a high fat low carb diet unless directed by your doctor. I personally love my carbs!
0 -
RebeccaParmenter wrote: »I cant see any reasoning behind a high fat low carb diet unless directed by your doctor. I personally love my carbs!
For exactly the same reason that you love carbs, some people personally love their cream, well-marbled steaks, avocados, and nuts.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions