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.
afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?
Replies
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
It would have been nice to get actual numbers but anyway, by your given ratio, your LDL would be 84, which as you probably know, is not typical for people on a paleo style diet high in meat and saturated fat. I've seen numerous threads on a paleo/primal forum where people have had their LDL (bad) cholesterol go up and be above normal ranges despite losing weight.aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
From what I remember reporting to my sister, my LDL:HDL ratio was 1:1. My HDL was 84. Total cholesterol was normal, and triglycerides were very low... I certainly meet the AHA's guidelines, but not everyone does necessarily.
The response is usually to only focus on ratios and on HDL (good chol) which naturally goes up with dietary fat. The typical advice given to these unfortunate folks is to ignore current guidelines as being outdated. I fell for this BS as well even when my total chol went up to 278 and LDL went up to 203. Luckily, I wised up and I've managed to drop to normal recommended levels by dropping the high saturated fat paleo diet.
That's completely unnecessary for optimal health. My last fasting glucose was also a normal 70 mg/dl (normal is 65-99) despite my diet of 75% carbs ( that's well over 300 g/day). Majority of that is whole foods like potatoes, rice, oats, other grains, legumes, fruits and veggies but it also includes table sugar on a daily basis and sweets on a weekly basis.aqsylvester wrote: »I don't think my doc did an A1C given I'm 32, but maybe he should have--lots of diabetes in my family. Just recently I checked my blood sugar to practice using a new glucometer at work (I'm an RN). My sugar was 68, and I was feeling excellent (not hungry in the least, had coffee and heavy cream that morning and in fact fasted the rest of the day)--the funny thing is that at the hospital, a patient with a blood sugar below 70 is considered hypoglycemic and immediately treated. If asymptomatic, we can use an oral snack or glucose gel. I guess that's the power of having a blood supply rich in ketones!
Well, from what I understand, I don't eat a "paleo" diet, but I've never studied it. I eat a ketogenic real food diet. For one thing, I'm perfectly fine with dairy. Another, I don't eat honey or agave or other high carb sweeteners that may or may not be paleo friendly (I think they are ok with honey?). Lastly, I don't consume high sugar fruit on a regular basis, like grapes or pineapple. If I wanted to "cheat," I'm ok with most anything that's a real food. Sometimes I allow potatoes, but nothing processed or pulverized like wheat flour or bread. I don't enjoy beans, and I don't find eating them necessary.
As far as the ketogenic diet goes, I have heard from listening to docs who prescribe it, that about 1/3 of patients will have LDL drop (like me), 1/3 will have LDL stay the same, and 1/3 will have LDL rise. For the latter third, a nuclear lipid panel will help determine LDL particle size and risk related to those ratios... of those patients, usually 2-3% have the more dangerous pattern of a rise in small, dense LDL. I do think a nuclear lipid panel is far more helpful than a basic panel--did you doctor ever order one of those? Or just the basic panel? For those who see a rise in small, dense LDL, it seems a lot of those patients start off with the severe underlying insulin resistance and might still need higher than normal levels of insulin to down-regulate the production of VLDL (a normal role of insulin in a healthy person).
Just some thoughts... more research is needed, and on the way!
One more thing... you get 75% of your macros from carbs? Yikes! Are you very physically active and/or eating mostly whole food carbs? How are you getting enough fat and protein? How many grams of protein and fat do you get? That sounds pretty insane to me. It might be worth noting that fasting glucose says nothing about your fasting insulin levels. Your pancreas can pump out extra insulin for years, working overtime to keep your blood glucose normal, while your insulin level creeps up and up and your cells become resistant. It's only when the worn out pancreas and the resistant cells reach a breaking point that the fasting blood glucose starts to rise.
Whats wrong with 75% carbs? The healthiest and longest lasting people in the world are in that range. But again, its the carb that matters.
@psulemon
Just do the math, if he's consuming 75% of his macros in carbohydrate (about 300 grams, he states, which would correspond to a 1600 calorie diet)... let's assume he's eats the DRI of protein for the average sedentary male = 56 g, which would mean about 14% of this macros... then he's got another 11% for fat (insanely, impossibly low btw, no normal human does this and eats palatable food), which translates to about 20 g per day. That's ridiculous. It's absolutely intolerable for a normal human. If he was white knuckling himself to eat this way, his brain tissue would probably shrink and he'd become depressed (as many people on an extreme low fat diet)... The guy could basically eat 1/4 cup of almonds per day for his entire fat allowance. Everything else would have to be fat free!!
"His" profile says he's actually female (which I think was stated in this thread).
75%, 10% (not insane, although not my thing: see https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/ and following), and I believe I've seen some posts supporting the below 10% fat thing, and so 15% protein. At 1600 that would mean 60, which lower than usually recommended to maintain muscle at a deficit, but the poster has not shared her goals.
Kenyan and Ethiopian marathon runners tend to be around 80-10-10, and healthy. Macro mix doesn't seem to matter that much traditionally either. Food choice does. But the idea that carbs are unhealthy is a ridiculous travesty.
80/10/10 and the likes are probably sustainable in the context of a high calorie intake, because this way at the end of the day you can eat enough fat and protein. On a calorie restricted diet, they are probably a recipe for disaster.
I mostly agree (although I wouldn't call 1800-2100 a calorie restricted diet, that's maintenance at the poster's weight) and for me that would be true, but there are HCLF vegans who seem to do fine and the Fuhrman, etc., people, so I tend to take a broader approach -- macros can be extremely variable.1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »None of this is convincing me to eat more animal fats.
Me too. Finding out that saturated fat is "not as bad as once thought" is not a green light to gorge on it. It means, don't be afraid of it. Feel free to include it onto your diet the same as any other nutrient, in moderation. As alwyas, IMO, balance is key...
Yep, as I always thought.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
seven years ago...
What, pray tell, has changed in that time?
The emergence of keto as a religion instead of a diet?11 -
Religion, politics and diet. The Holy Trinity of but hurt...3
-
“Mao recalled: "Very many members of our family have given their lives, killed by the diabetes and the heart disease. You grew up eating honey, and thus far you have never known health. In the future, if you do not become a carbist, but rather a moderate, I shall be satisfied. You have never suffered--how can you be a ketoist?"
”
-Mao Tse-tung (translated to English by richln)2 -
I guess if one has no genetic risk whatsoever for diabetes then a diet with 75% calories from carbs can work. Otherwise, for a significant portion of the population that is probably not going to end well eventually.
The situation of people in other cultures eating that much is irrelevant in this context since those people do not have rates of diabetes like it is seen in the Western world.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.
Most of this is actually nonsense. Do you really think that if people don't follow low carb or keto that we are all weak, hungry, and wasting muscle? Do you really think that everyone who follows keto automatically improves hunger, mood and energy? It's this type of bias which drives arguments because it isn't factual. And it's these biases and lack of knowledge that keeps me away from most of this debates. Too much cherry picking and not enough discussion.
And every diet claims improvements in mood, increased energy, and so much more.. why because most of it is placebo. And the rest is from improving the foods you eat... shocker that you have improved mood when you go from a lifestyle with low nutrient foods and no exercise to one with very high nutrient foods and exercise.
You can be satiated on any type of diet if you know what to eat. You can fail at every type of diet if you don't know what to eat. Hell, how many people do you see posting on the forums about how they are starving, exhausted, and so much more with low carb diets and keto?
Protein is the key to maintain muscle and metabolism. Keto is only muscle sparring if protein levels are at a level to support sustainment of lean body mass and there is some progressive resistance to drive the breakdown of muscle tissue. If protein is low on keto and training is not adequate, you will lose muscle (outside the standard deviation of weight loss).
Your sunshine and rainbows "every diet is equally valid and helpful and anyone who says otherwise is just spouting nonsense because what really matters is placebo effect, increased nutrients, and exercise" might seem really great on the surface; however, the big problem with it is it isn't "factual," and it isn't supported by any science. It just sounds cool for you to come down on all those silly "biases and lack of knowledge." (This lady must really know what she's talking about!)
We're talking about people healing from insulin resistance, not just finding a way to eat. There is evidence that carbohydrate restriction and fasting works for them far better than simple calorie restriction. Even simply taking the same amount of calories, but restricting them to a feeding window, such as 8 hrs, instead of spacing them out over all waking hours, shows greater metabolic improvements--why do you think that is? Weight loss is not just about calories-in-calories-out. It's driven by hormones--for someone with IR, the problem is high insulin. How do you think they drop those levels? There is science and evidence available to help them.
What if you came to your doctor for treatment of a disease and he said, "well, pretty much any treatment you choose will give you some benefit, so pick whatever feels right for you." Would you be happy with that answer? Or would you say, "You're the MD. You have the degree. What does the evidence say?"1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.
Most of this is actually nonsense. Do you really think that if people don't follow low carb or keto that we are all weak, hungry, and wasting muscle? Do you really think that everyone who follows keto automatically improves hunger, mood and energy? It's this type of bias which drives arguments because it isn't factual. And it's these biases and lack of knowledge that keeps me away from most of this debates. Too much cherry picking and not enough discussion.
And every diet claims improvements in mood, increased energy, and so much more.. why because most of it is placebo. And the rest is from improving the foods you eat... shocker that you have improved mood when you go from a lifestyle with low nutrient foods and no exercise to one with very high nutrient foods and exercise.
You can be satiated on any type of diet if you know what to eat. You can fail at every type of diet if you don't know what to eat. Hell, how many people do you see posting on the forums about how they are starving, exhausted, and so much more with low carb diets and keto?
Protein is the key to maintain muscle and metabolism. Keto is only muscle sparring if protein levels are at a level to support sustainment of lean body mass and there is some progressive resistance to drive the breakdown of muscle tissue. If protein is low on keto and training is not adequate, you will lose muscle (outside the standard deviation of weight loss).
Your sunshine and rainbows "every diet is equally valid and helpful and anyone who says otherwise is just spouting nonsense because what really matter is placebo effect, increased nutrients, and exercise" might seem really great on the surface; however, the big problem with it is it isn't "factual" and it isn't supported by any science. It just sounds cool for you to come down on all those silly "biases and lack of knowledge." (This lady must really know what she's talking about!)
We're talking about people healing from insulin resistance, not just finding a way to eat. There is evidence that carbohydrate restriction and fasting works for them far better than simple calorie restriction. Even simply taking the same amount of calories, but restricting them to a feeding window, such as 8 hrs, instead of spacing them out over all waking hours, shows greater metabolic improvements--why do you think that is? Weight loss is not just about calories-in-calories-out. It's driven by hormones--for someone with IR, the problem is high insulin. How do you think they drop those levels? There is science and evidence available to help them.
What if you came to your doctor for treatment of a disease and he said, "well, pretty much any treatment you choose will give you come benefit, so pick whatever feels right for you." Would you be happy with that answer? Or would you say, "You're the MD. You have the degree. What does the evidence say?"
I take it you've never tried to be medicated for depression...2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I guess if one has no genetic risk whatsoever for diabetes then a diet with 75% calories from carbs can work. Otherwise, for a significant portion of the population that is probably not going to end well eventually.
The situation of people in other cultures eating that much is irrelevant in this context since those people do not have rates of diabetes like it is seen in the Western world.
If people are eaten lots of carbs and not getting diabetes it seems pretty relevant. It eliminates carbs as the causal factor.3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.
Most of this is actually nonsense. Do you really think that if people don't follow low carb or keto that we are all weak, hungry, and wasting muscle? Do you really think that everyone who follows keto automatically improves hunger, mood and energy? It's this type of bias which drives arguments because it isn't factual. And it's these biases and lack of knowledge that keeps me away from most of this debates. Too much cherry picking and not enough discussion.
And every diet claims improvements in mood, increased energy, and so much more.. why because most of it is placebo. And the rest is from improving the foods you eat... shocker that you have improved mood when you go from a lifestyle with low nutrient foods and no exercise to one with very high nutrient foods and exercise.
You can be satiated on any type of diet if you know what to eat. You can fail at every type of diet if you don't know what to eat. Hell, how many people do you see posting on the forums about how they are starving, exhausted, and so much more with low carb diets and keto?
Protein is the key to maintain muscle and metabolism. Keto is only muscle sparring if protein levels are at a level to support sustainment of lean body mass and there is some progressive resistance to drive the breakdown of muscle tissue. If protein is low on keto and training is not adequate, you will lose muscle (outside the standard deviation of weight loss).
Your sunshine and rainbows "every diet is equally valid and helpful and anyone who says otherwise is just spouting nonsense because what really matter is placebo effect, increased nutrients, and exercise" might seem really great on the surface; however, the big problem with it is it isn't "factual" and it isn't supported by any science. It just sounds cool for you to come down on all those silly "biases and lack of knowledge." (This lady must really know what she's talking about!)
We're talking about people healing from insulin resistance, not just finding a way to eat. There is evidence that carbohydrate restriction and fasting works for them far better than simple calorie restriction. Even simply taking the same amount of calories, but restricting them to a feeding window, such as 8 hrs, instead of spacing them out over all waking hours, shows greater metabolic improvements--why do you think that is? Weight loss is not just about calories-in-calories-out. It's driven by hormones--for someone with IR, the problem is high insulin. How do you think they drop those levels? There is science and evidence available to help them.
What if you came to your doctor for treatment of a disease and he said, "well, pretty much any treatment you choose will give you come benefit, so pick whatever feels right for you." Would you be happy with that answer? Or would you say, "You're the MD. You have the degree. What does the evidence say?"
I take it you've never tried to be medicated for depression...
Yeah. There are plenty of other illnesses where that offer is presented. The patient must weigh up the pros and cons, potential side effects etc.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I guess if one has no genetic risk whatsoever for diabetes then a diet with 75% calories from carbs can work. Otherwise, for a significant portion of the population that is probably not going to end well eventually.
The situation of people in other cultures eating that much is irrelevant in this context since those people do not have rates of diabetes like it is seen in the Western world.
No, the situation of people in other cultures is precisely relevant. It suggests the issue for people in societies with high diabetes rates is something other than carb percentage.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
I'm kinda tempted to ignore your extremism and sarcasm. It's not insightful or productive. Just to help point you in the right direction, I will say that insulin resistance is multi-factorial and can exist in skeletal muscles or the liver or both--also treating IR is effective with more than just exercise and calorie restriction (which seems to be the most common/mainstream answer to every health related question... and I don't doubt that's because it sets people up for failure and helps out industry big-time).
In a healthy person, an inverse relationship exists between blood glucose and free fatty acids. This means that when glucose is low (as in a fasted state), free fatty acids are high (since the cells are burning fat for energy). When you eat, glucose goes up, insulin goes up, the breakdown of fat is inhibited, and free fatty acids levels fall. However, in type 2 diabetes, all three are high: glucose, insulin, and free fatty acids. This process starts with cells becoming overwhelmed with both glucose and insulin, they start protectively turning the glucose in fat stores, resulting, for example, in streaky fat deposits in the muscles and also fatty liver disease. (Remember Dr. Greger from earlier in the thread... he was saying these fat deposits cause IR, but really they are just a side effect of high insulin and glucose levels). People even induce fatty liver and fat streaked muscles in animals (because it tastes good) by feeding them sugar, starch, and/or corn in opposition to their natural diets. If you want to address the IR, exercise can help because it lowers both glucose and insulin and helps the cells get back into lypolysis--however, anything that lowers glucose, insulin, and promotes the breakdown of fat are going to be helpful: 1. switching to "slow carbs" which cause a lower glucose and insulin response (aka, whole or real food), 2. simply restricting carbohydrates, and 3. fasting are very powerful tools for healing IR.
Of course, this flies in the face of mainstream advice, which would have you believe that no one really knows the cause of IR... it might be genetics? obesity? saturated fat? trans fat? It's such a mystery! And if you have IR, it's a progressive disease with no known cures (aka, you will need medicine one day and will take it in increasing doses for the rest of your life). It's just funny to me how exercise and calorie restriction are totally acceptable to mainstream... but tools that do the exact same thing but more powerfully, are just not OK. I mean, if people start regularly fasting and eating real low carbohydrate food, who is going to buy the cheap, processed stuff that makes so much profit? If people actually heal their IR or T2DM, who is going to buy all the insulin at such a ridiculously high price?
Fasting and vlc diets are accepted in the mainstream. But they aren't pushed as much because dieting or change lifestyles is hard enough. Adding high restriction can make it even more difficult especially since many people are coming off diets with highly processed carbs and fat.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "even more difficult." What's more difficult?
Simply restricting calories, feeling weak and hungry all the time, and killing your metabolism, wasting more lean muscle
OR
switching to ketosis and getting the benefits of appetite suppression and increased mood and energy along with a surge in growth hormone and resultant increase in metabolism through fasting, while sparing more lean muscle
I guess picking out the foods and cooking them would be the hard part... grabbing whatever is around the house and counting calories might be easier to some.
Most of this is actually nonsense. Do you really think that if people don't follow low carb or keto that we are all weak, hungry, and wasting muscle? Do you really think that everyone who follows keto automatically improves hunger, mood and energy? It's this type of bias which drives arguments because it isn't factual. And it's these biases and lack of knowledge that keeps me away from most of this debates. Too much cherry picking and not enough discussion.
And every diet claims improvements in mood, increased energy, and so much more.. why because most of it is placebo. And the rest is from improving the foods you eat... shocker that you have improved mood when you go from a lifestyle with low nutrient foods and no exercise to one with very high nutrient foods and exercise.
You can be satiated on any type of diet if you know what to eat. You can fail at every type of diet if you don't know what to eat. Hell, how many people do you see posting on the forums about how they are starving, exhausted, and so much more with low carb diets and keto?
Protein is the key to maintain muscle and metabolism. Keto is only muscle sparring if protein levels are at a level to support sustainment of lean body mass and there is some progressive resistance to drive the breakdown of muscle tissue. If protein is low on keto and training is not adequate, you will lose muscle (outside the standard deviation of weight loss).
Your sunshine and rainbows "every diet is equally valid and helpful and anyone who says otherwise is just spouting nonsense because what really matter is placebo effect, increased nutrients, and exercise" might seem really great on the surface; however, the big problem with it is it isn't "factual" and it isn't supported by any science. It just sounds cool for you to come down on all those silly "biases and lack of knowledge." (This lady must really know what she's talking about!)
We're talking about people healing from insulin resistance, not just finding a way to eat. There is evidence that carbohydrate restriction and fasting works for them far better than simple calorie restriction. Even simply taking the same amount of calories, but restricting them to a feeding window, such as 8 hrs, instead of spacing them out over all waking hours, shows greater metabolic improvements--why do you think that is? Weight loss is not just about calories-in-calories-out. It's driven by hormones--for someone with IR, the problem is high insulin. How do you think they drop those levels? There is science and evidence available to help them.
What if you came to your doctor for treatment of a disease and he said, "well, pretty much any treatment you choose will give you come benefit, so pick whatever feels right for you." Would you be happy with that answer? Or would you say, "You're the MD. You have the degree. What does the evidence say?"
IRT IF. It is an effective strategy for a lot of people. There is some science, albeit a lot is more prelimary, that can suggest some benefit. There is no denying that. But as with all studies, there are parameters. And once you deviate from the parameters, you have to expect different results.
But also with all medical conditions, there are a variety of reactions and requirement. PCOS, for example, is one medical condition that benefits from low carbs, but depending on the severity, they see that benefit from 20g all the way up to 200g. Could those at the higher range see benefit from the reduction? Possible, but it would depend on the ability to sustain. Some have seen greater impacts due to exercise and going to a more slow carb style diet.
So it's not sunshines and rainbows, but rather that I recognizes this one size fits all thing is utter nonsense. I recognize there is science supporting many different eating styles (i.e. - plant base vs low carb for cholesterol improvements). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you can if it doesn't support low carb or keto.1 -
My favorite part of this thread was the insinuation that if you eat a higher carb diet, you must not have a sex-drive.11
-
stevencloser wrote: »I'm going to post this study review again. It doesn't have cool colorful graphs and isn't a viral youtube video, but it's science. It talks about both sides, mentions the studies it bases both sides on and comes to a conclusion looking at all the available evidence. That's how this works, deal with it.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
An interesting bit from the last section of your article says:
"Moderate dietary fat intake can increase the risk of heart diseases in a population with a low fat intake
( ! 20%E) [Suh et al., 2001]. Therefore, promoting an acceptable macronutrient range of dietary fat between 20
and 35%E may not be advisable for all population groups and should be done with caution, especially when no
signs of deficiency are obvious."
The Suh et al study (Korean) in that reference was - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/4/722.long#sec-7
which found that:
"Among the controls, total fat intake was ≈20% of energy intake, which is lower than in Western countries (35–42% of energy intake) .....
....The average energy composition of the diet of the controls in this study was 64.3% carbohydrates, 13.9% protein, and 19.9% total fat and was in the range of the recommendations (65%, 15%, and 20%, respectively) of the Korean Nutrition Society (22).......
....The present study showed that a moderate dietary fat intake may be a significant risk factor for IHD incidence in a population with a low fat intake."
In fact, in Korea, their dietary recommendations for its population is as low as 15% for fat:
http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/17 Suppl 2//416.pdf
"Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) were developed to represent the ranges of percentages
of energy from each of the three macronutrients compatible with good health in Koreans. The established
AMDR for carbohydrate, lipid and protein for adults were set at 55-70%, 15-25%, and 10-20%, respectively."
And this all now makes sense to me, even though I'm not Korean, I did grow up eating a traditional non-western diet that was low in meat, animal fats, overall fats and high in starches. When I moved to the US and started eating more meat and fat, and worse, when I switched to paleo which calls for even more meat and fat, my cholesterol blew up. So I totally agree with that study that even moderate fat level recommendations can be more detrimental to those of us who grew up eating traditional lower fat non-western diets.
It's also funny that @aqsylvester said that lower fat diets result in shrunken brains! Ha! Tell that to the Koreans who've got a recommended range shown above is as low as 15% and the population as a whole is normally under 20% according to the above study. I guess, when you're blinded by your ketosis cocoon of 70%+ fat, it's hard to believe that hundreds of millions if not billions of people not only function just fine on lower fat diets, they also enjoy lower levels of CVD as long as they stick to traditional non-western diets.5 -
I already mentioned genetics. And when there is at least a little genetic risk factor present for any given individual, eating a high carb diet becomes dangerous. That's why I mentioned from a health perspective, this kind of diet is only sustainable if there are no underlying genetic abnormalities in glucose metabolism.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I guess if one has no genetic risk whatsoever for diabetes then a diet with 75% calories from carbs can work. Otherwise, for a significant portion of the population that is probably not going to end well eventually.
The situation of people in other cultures eating that much is irrelevant in this context since those people do not have rates of diabetes like it is seen in the Western world.
No, the situation of people in other cultures is precisely relevant. It suggests the issue for people in societies with high diabetes rates is something other than carb percentage.
True, but this has to be evaluated over the long term. As it's already been stated, the progression from initial insulin resistance to abnormal blood sugar can take a long, long time to develop.paulgads82 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I guess if one has no genetic risk whatsoever for diabetes then a diet with 75% calories from carbs can work. Otherwise, for a significant portion of the population that is probably not going to end well eventually.
The situation of people in other cultures eating that much is irrelevant in this context since those people do not have rates of diabetes like it is seen in the Western world.
If people are eaten lots of carbs and not getting diabetes it seems pretty relevant. It eliminates carbs as the causal factor.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I already mentioned genetics.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I guess if one has no genetic risk whatsoever for diabetes then a diet with 75% calories from carbs can work. Otherwise, for a significant portion of the population that is probably not going to end well eventually.
The situation of people in other cultures eating that much is irrelevant in this context since those people do not have rates of diabetes like it is seen in the Western world.
No, the situation of people in other cultures is precisely relevant. It suggests the issue for people in societies with high diabetes rates is something other than carb percentage.
Societies with higher carb percentages are all over the place, probably not genetics, with rare exceptions like someone being of Inuit or Yupik descent perhaps.
IMO, likely food choice (not carb percentage) plus obesity rate (with some people being more susceptible even at lower weights, but the overall rate lines up extremely closely to obesity rate).1 -
Re "it's genetics," this study compares people in Western Africa and people of Western African descent in London.
The ones in London ate fewer carbs, but different carbs. More fat, sat fat, and protein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4660931/1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
"Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."
This as stated is utter BS. If energy intake is in balance with expenditure (CI=CO) then you will not have weight gain, unhealthy or otherwise. What percentage comes from which macro is irrelevant.
0 -
paulgads82 wrote: »If people are eaten lots of carbs and not getting diabetes it seems pretty relevant. It eliminates carbs as the causal factor.
It depends. It's not a causal factor on it's own, but in combination with calorie excess and/or micronutrition deficiency a high carb intake absolutely will eventually lead to diabetes. That's a major component of why obesity and Type 2 are such a growing problem. People eat way too much of the overly processed, high calorie, low micronutrient, grain based convenient food... bread, cereal, pasta, etc. And yes, in fairness most of the meat based convenience foods contain way too many calories due to fat compared to micronutrient value, frozen dinners, chicken nuggets and so forth. Of course a lot of them -also- have added carbs from breading and such.
Too many macros will cause weight gain. Too few, or wrong proportion of micros will cause other problems. Combine the two with a very high percentage of carbs and one of the problems caused will generally be diabetes.
The problem I personally have with extremely low carb and keto diets are that they cause people to shun things like fruit and milk. These are important sources for much micronutrition, and even though they carry a high percentage of their macros in carbohydrate, the total calorie content is well in line with nutrient density.
The problem I have with "plant-based" diets is that they generally make a mess of amino acid balance, or they require eating a bunch of stuff that is just unpalatable. They also generally don't support much more than minimal skeletal muscle. Vegans -do- tend to be scrawny and frail, regardless of how good -they- think they look. Then there's also the fact that so many of them are the shrill, "meat is murder" extremists. Sorry, your dietary defiance of nature does not make you morally superior. Human beings evolved as omnivores. We are meant to eat a little bit of pretty much everything that doesn't kill us first.
2 -
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »
Right, all these claims are equally full of *pterodactyl eggs*.8 -
You got it!0
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »If people are eaten lots of carbs and not getting diabetes it seems pretty relevant. It eliminates carbs as the causal factor.
It depends. It's not a causal factor on it's own, but in combination with calorie excess and/or micronutrition deficiency a high carb intake absolutely will eventually lead to diabetes. That's a major component of why obesity and Type 2 are such a growing problem. People eat way too much of the overly processed, high calorie, low micronutrient, grain based convenient food... bread, cereal, pasta, etc. And yes, in fairness most of the meat based convenience foods contain way too many calories due to fat compared to micronutrient value, frozen dinners, chicken nuggets and so forth. Of course a lot of them -also- have added carbs from breading and such.
Too many macros will cause weight gain. Too few, or wrong proportion of micros will cause other problems. Combine the two with a very high percentage of carbs and one of the problems caused will generally be diabetes.
The problem I personally have with extremely low carb and keto diets are that they cause people to shun things like fruit and milk. These are important sources for much micronutrition, and even though they carry a high percentage of their macros in carbohydrate, the total calorie content is well in line with nutrient density.
The problem I have with "plant-based" diets is that they generally make a mess of amino acid balance, or they require eating a bunch of stuff that is just unpalatable. They also generally don't support much more than minimal skeletal muscle. Vegans -do- tend to be scrawny and frail, regardless of how good -they- think they look. Then there's also the fact that so many of them are the shrill, "meat is murder" extremists. Sorry, your dietary defiance of nature does not make you morally superior. Human beings evolved as omnivores. We are meant to eat a little bit of pretty much everything that doesn't kill us first.
Love this post!!!!!0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
"Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."
This as stated is utter BS. If energy intake is in balance with expenditure (CI=CO) then you will not have weight gain, unhealthy or otherwise. What percentage comes from which macro is irrelevant.
The cited sources are
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7666
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42665/1/WHO_TRS_916.pdf?ua=1
and
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1953e.pdf
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
"Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."
This as stated is utter BS. If energy intake is in balance with expenditure (CI=CO) then you will not have weight gain, unhealthy or otherwise. What percentage comes from which macro is irrelevant.
The cited sources are
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7666
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42665/1/WHO_TRS_916.pdf?ua=1
and
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1953e.pdf
The source studies did not control for total calorie intake. In fact, the WHO paper makes specific reference to "high consumption of energy dense, micronutrient poor food" which certainly includes high fat convenience food but also would apply to high carb processed foods. The implication that consumption of fats can lead to weight gain in spite of a CICO balanced diet is nonsense. Their recommendation for percentage is based on calorie uncontrolled diets in which the decreased fat percentage is assumed to correspond with a calorie reduction by default. The manner in which the mediacentre/factsheets quote is worded is propaganda, in the same vein as the way one almost always sees saturated fats, red meat and trans-fats lumped together. It gives the general public, ie. casual observer of nutrition reporting, the false impression that red meats are a major source of trans-fat, which is absolutely untrue. Trans-fats come almost exclusively from processed vegetable oils, such as hydrogenated soybean oil, which the 'establishment' convinced everybody back in the '70s and '80s to use instead of far less damaging lard and animal fats/oils.
You wonder why people don't trust the "experts" and "authorities" when they change their mind and/or get proven wrong almost every time you pick up a newspaper?1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »
Right, all these claims are equally full of *pterodactyl eggs*.
Yup. In no way did I imply that either claims were correct. But, extreme vegetarianism isn't the topic of this particular thread.0 -
Yup. In no way did I imply that either claims were correct. But, extreme vegetarianism isn't the topic of this particular thread.
Actually, 'fear of animal fats and cholesterol' is a tactic frequently pushed by vegetarian extremists, attempting to convince people that their diet is superior in health to others. This is usually the go-to position when their moralizing against killing animals for food falls on deaf ears.
2 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Yup. In no way did I imply that either claims were correct. But, extreme vegetarianism isn't the topic of this particular thread.
Actually, 'fear of animal fats and cholesterol' is a tactic frequently pushed by vegetarian extremists, attempting to convince people that their diet is superior in health to others. This is usually the go-to position when their moralizing against killing animals for food falls on deaf ears.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but that still isn't what this particular thread is about as established in the OP.
I don't think we need another thread where we start diet-bashing based on a few loose screws. We already have a few of them going.5
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
- 176K 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