Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

research: high-fat low-carb diets could mean significant heart risk

13»

Replies

  • HornsbyHornsby Posts: 10,372Member Member Posts: 10,372Member Member
    rnelson88 wrote: »
    50% Protein/40% Fat/10% Carbs ....works magic!

    No way, bro.
  • lisawinning4losinglisawinning4losing Posts: 732Member Member Posts: 732Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Too much or too little of anything could be bad, which brings us back to the good old fashioned concept of a well balanced diet, though what the proper balance is will still be debated. For me, low carb means less junk food, so I only see that as a good thing. If you're going low carb then you definitely won't be stuffing your mouth with potato chips and sugary snacks, or packaged foods with lots of added sugars. You won't be eating fast food either (unless it's a lettuce wrap).

    I've noticed that a healthy diet, or what you might call a whole foods diet, even one that contains fruit, is naturally much lower in carbs than one with a lot of junk food, which is usually full of carbs. One naturally follows the other. As another example, if I'm counting carbs, then I'm encouraged to cook for myself rather than eat a frozen dinner which is no doubt full of added sugar. I don't feel like I have to be super restrictive on carbs. But, if you cut junk food out of your diet, then you'll automatically see your carb levels dramatically.

    Low carb doesn't necessarily mean less junk and high carb doesn't mean lots of junk. There are many high carb diets that are nothing buy whole and nutritious foods and there are plenty of low carb diets high in saturated fats. In all reality, it's how its implement.

    Well, I guess that's fair enough. There are some people, like Freelee the banana girl, who eat almost nothing but fruit. It's a whole foods diet, but no doubt high in carbs. Though at least it's better than refined carbs. And some people who are low carb will eat a lot of processed meat like hot dogs and sausages that are full of nitrites and other nasty things. So, it really does depend on how it's implemented. That's why I said that's what it means to me . When I think low carb, I don't think "Oooh, hot dogs!" But I guess some people do. (Though I'm guessing that hot dogs also have added sugars, if only in small amounts, because practically everything processed like that does. So if you're trying to avoid any amount of processed sugar, then that would also eliminate that, I would think.)

    I hope you're aware that Freelee's diet is pretty bad. She has amenorrhea and she thinks that is a sign that she is keeping her body so clean that it doesn't need a monthly toxin release.

    That actually doesn't surprise me at all. She should eat a steak.
  • eric_sg61eric_sg61 Posts: 2,931Member Member Posts: 2,931Member Member
    Longest living populations eat high carb diets deal with it. Japanese diet is all over the news today. Carbs FTW
  • fileshinyfileshiny Posts: 149Member, Premium Member Posts: 149Member, Premium Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Issues I found with the study:
    1. the macros are not what I would consider LCHF - too many carbs, not enough fat- and definitely not ketogenic
    2. it's only an 8 week trial, which is way too short a time to have any meaningful results
    3. very small sample size, with only 27 individuals in the study, of which only 24 completed it
    4. they only used a 4 day food diary to assess habitual dietary intake as a baseline
    5. while randomized, it was clearly not a double-blind study
    6. study participants were not monitored closely throughout the study to confirm exercise and dietary intake
    7. the study was partly paid for by an unrestricted research grant from The Sugar Bureau
  • lithezebralithezebra Posts: 3,684Member Member Posts: 3,684Member Member
    fileshiny wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Issues I found with the study:
    ....
    [*] it's only an 8 week trial, which is way too short a time to have any meaningful results
    ...

    I don't know how long to expect it to take to show a difference in arterial stiffness, which seemed to be the only difference between the two groups.

    "Results: Significant weight loss occurred in both groups (P<0.01), with no difference between groups (P=0.40). Peripheral glucose uptake increased but there was no difference between groups (P=0.28) and suppression of endogenous glucose production was also similar between groups. Meal tolerance-related insulin secretion decreased with weight loss with no difference between groups (P=0.71). 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."

    edited April 2016
  • FunkyTobiasFunkyTobias Posts: 1,776Member Member Posts: 1,776Member Member
    fileshiny wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Issues I found with the study:
    1. while randomized, it was clearly not a double-blind study

    How exactly would you "double-blind" a diet intervention. And to what benefit? Do you honestly think that the placebo effect will have any impact on systemic arterial stiffness?

  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    Double blinding has been done in dietary interventions using meal replacement products with different formulation. Probably isn't really necessary as the subjects wouldn't be able to manipulate their artery properties based on what they had to eat.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    fileshiny wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Issues I found with the study:
    1. while randomized, it was clearly not a double-blind study

    How exactly would you "double-blind" a diet intervention. And to what benefit? Do you honestly think that the placebo effect will have any impact on systemic arterial stiffness?

    I kept thinking about this possibility till my chest ached...
  • Sabine_StroehmSabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,388Member Member Posts: 19,388Member Member
    fileshiny wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Issues I found with the study:
    1. the macros are not what I would consider LCHF - too many carbs, not enough fat- and definitely not ketogenic
    2. it's only an 8 week trial, which is way too short a time to have any meaningful results
    3. very small sample size, with only 27 individuals in the study, of which only 24 completed it
    4. they only used a 4 day food diary to assess habitual dietary intake as a baseline
    5. while randomized, it was clearly not a double-blind study
    6. study participants were not monitored closely throughout the study to confirm exercise and dietary intake
    7. the study was partly paid for by an unrestricted research grant from The Sugar Bureau

    I didn't see where they said it was a Keto study.

    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.