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
-
aqsylvester wrote: »It's not insightful or productive.
You said: "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 ..."
I pointed out that exercise improves insulin sensitivity. You think that's neither insightful or productive? Did insulin resistance stop being a risk factor since you typed that?12 -
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.
There's even a Freelee thread that is currently active.1 -
In some cases exercise on its own is not enough, and that's where diet comes in.NorthCascades wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »It's not insightful or productive.
You said: "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 ..."
I pointed out that exercise improves insulin sensitivity. You think that's neither insightful or productive? Did insulin resistance stop being a risk factor since you typed that?
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »As a vegetarian, the idea of having a stick of butter in my coffee every morning and then cutting back on raspberries and broccoli is kind of daft.
That idea seems kind of daft to this omnivore as well.5 -
For your reading pleasure...
July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short
April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long
February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »For your reading pleasure...
July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short
April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long
February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
Ah how nice.
I took the liberty of choosing one of them at random and checking if what you say is true.
Imagine how SHOCKED I was to find what you said about the study was not at all what the study said.
You said this:
"April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995"
Whereas that exact study (The full text of it that is), says the following:
"A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated."
Sounds a bit different from what picture you were trying to paint, doesn't it?19 -
Well I don't know about you but I am flabbergasted!stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »For your reading pleasure...
July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short
April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long
February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
Ah how nice.
I took the liberty of choosing one of them at random and checking if what you say is true.
Imagine how SHOCKED I was to find what you said about the study was not at all what the study said.
You said this:
"April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995"
Whereas that exact study (The full text of it that is), says the following:
"A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated."
Sounds a bit different from what picture you were trying to paint, doesn't it?
6 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »For your reading pleasure...
July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short
April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long
February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
Ah how nice.
I took the liberty of choosing one of them at random and checking if what you say is true.
Imagine how SHOCKED I was to find what you said about the study was not at all what the study said.
You said this:
"April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995"
Whereas that exact study (The full text of it that is), says the following:
"A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated."
Sounds a bit different from what picture you were trying to paint, doesn't it?
@Stevencloser
Firstly, why not try reading all of them?
Secondly, this analysis looked at all RCTs to date and found no causal link. That's exactly what was stated by me and your excerpt.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As far as avoiding metabolic damage without keto, it's more than possible! Traditional diets show this. The key is avoidance of processed foods (not saturated fat).0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As I've come to expect, you're having such a hard time absorbing information that conflicts with your beliefs, that once again, you've resorted to misquoting studies. Are you that desperate or do you think we're gullible?
This is the study I referenced, that @stevencloser posted - http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
Fats and Fatty Acid Requirements for Adults
And here's what they said in the last section (which I quoted before but you clearly didn't read)
"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
In case you're still not comprehending this, the study that found Koreans eat on average less than 20% fat which falls within the recommendations of the Korean Nutrition Society. So, not only is there NO warning against eating under 20% fat, they're saying for certain populations, more fat, even moderate levels, ARE a risk factor for heart disease.
Why don't you go tell Koreans that their diet is as you say "unpalatable for the average person, unlikely to provide EFAs and affecting their brain function, mood and hormones".
Or you could open your mind...just a little bit?
And as far as how long I've been doing this, I grew up eating a traditional non-western diet low in fat, low in meat, high in starches for 24 yrs, never got fat, moved to the US after college, ate more fat, got fat, cholesterol went up and after several years fumbling about, I've finally started connecting the dots, and figured out that I'm better off going back to a similar diet as the one I grew up eating, high carb, low fat. It's how my parents still eat and they're well into their 70s, normal weight, no diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Long enough of a history for ya?7 -
Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As I've come to expect, you're having such a hard time absorbing information that conflicts with your beliefs, that once again, you've resorted to misquoting studies. Are you that desperate or do you think we're gullible?
This is the study I referenced, that @stevencloser posted - http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
Fats and Fatty Acid Requirements for Adults
And here's what they said in the last section (which I quoted before but you clearly didn't read)
"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
In case you're still not comprehending this, the study that found Koreans eat on average less than 20% fat which falls within the recommendations of the Korean Nutrition Society. So, not only is there NO warning against eating under 20% fat, they're saying for certain populations, more fat, even moderate levels, ARE a risk factor for heart disease.
Why don't you go tell Koreans that their diet is as you say "unpalatable for the average person, unlikely to provide EFAs and affecting their brain function, mood and hormones".
Or you could open your mind...just a little bit?
And as far as how long I've been doing this, I grew up eating a traditional non-western diet low in fat, low in meat, high in starches for 24 yrs, never got fat, moved to the US after college, ate more fat, got fat, cholesterol went up and after several years fumbling about, I've finally started connecting the dots, and figured out that I'm better off going back to a similar diet as the one I grew up eating, high carb, low fat. It's how my parents still eat and they're well into their 70s, normal weight, no diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Long enough of a history for ya?
Here's the whole section on Dietary Recommendations for Total Fat Intake:
The acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) for total fat intake can vary between 20 and 35%E (maximum: 35%E; minimum 15%E). While for most individuals with moderate physical activity 30%E is recommended, for those with high physical activity levels this can reach 35%E. The maximum level (MAL) of total fat intake is considered to be 35%E, with regard to energy balance and diet quality. However, high fat intakes are habitually accompanied by increased saturated fat, cholesterol, and energy density.
The dietary guidelines for Americans recognize that low-fat diets of < 20% can elevate the risk of inadequate intakes of essential fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins, and may encourage changes in HDL-cholesterol levels and TGs [Department of Health and Human Services, 2005]. On the one hand, for some population groups, this aim ( 6 20–30%E) cannot be reached immediately due to their socioeconomic status. On the other hand, an increase in dietary fat intake of 15 to 20–30%E can also have adverse effects [Suh et al., 2001; Bourne et al., 2002; Vorster et al., 2005; Pieters and Vorster, 2008]. For instance, among urban blacks in Africa in the past 50 years, the dietary fat intake was increased from 16.4 to 26.2%E, while the proportion of carbohydrates has decreased from 69.3 to 61.7% of total energy. These changes to a ‘Western’ diet can also be observed among rural Africans. In 1998, the South African Demographic and Health Survey observed that 31.8% of African women ( 1 15 years) were obese and that a further 26.7% were overweight, whereas 6.0% men were obese and 19.4% overweight [Bourne et al., 2002]. For this reason, promoting a dietary fat intake between 20 and 30 or even 35%E without having a special focus on energy balance may not be favorable for all population groups and should be done with caution, especially when there are no obvious signs of deficiency.
Therefore, the minimum level (MIL) of fat intake should not be less than 15%E, while paying attention to the adequate intake of essential fatty acids and energy needs. Nevertheless, it has to be considered that this lower limit of fat intake for adults is difficult to define because only a few investigations have addressed this topic [Walker and Walker, 1978; Jequier, 1999; Bourne et al., 2002].
Also one thing of note, this document is an "expert consultation" from 2009, a summary of sorts, and not a systematic review--so I would take it with it a grain of salt.
As far as Koreans, eating a diet rich in seafood probably does much to prevent deficiency in EFAs. You stated you keep your fat intake below 15% (not recommended by any study that anyone has shared). How do you prevent deficiency? How do you get enough DHA?
1 -
@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.8
-
aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As far as avoiding metabolic damage without keto, it's more than possible! Traditional diets show this. The key is avoidance of processed foods (not saturated fat).
That is just nonsense. You continuously fail to recognize that the healthiest and longest living people in the world have diets very similar to @Traveler120 . And while you think it's unpalatable to eat low fat, most of us thinks Keto is just as unpalatable. I mean seriously, who wants to get 1/3 of their calories from oil or butter in coffee.. That makes me want to throw up just thinking about it.
Your body only needs something like 11g of fat to get all essential fatty acids (see comment below from Yarwell for further information). So you are just making more assumptions and fail to recognize there are more than one beneficial diet.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/35521957/#Comment_355219577 -
@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all.
If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person. 5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Well one area I certainly agree with you on is not being afraid of saturated fat. That said, I have no desire to make it the bulk of my calories. 30% is enough IMO.
Humans are multi variant creatures living in a multi variant environment. To that point, I think we have the capacity to thrive on many diets, some high carb and some high fat. Which is best? I guess we really won't know until the end.
I do appreciate your passion on this topic (albeit a little one sided) as I am passionate on the topic as well. My take: eat mostly whole real nutrient dense food, get adequate protein, fat and fiber and fill in the rest with carbs. Get plenty of exercise and sleep. Try to live in the moment and keep stress at bay. I think stressing about eating a perfect diet is probably worse then eating a not so perfect diet and not stressing about it.
As I tell all my friends and clients, "train hard, eat well, get plenty of rest and go live your life..."
I believe the rest will take care of itself.8 -
My cholesterol became normal with a low-carb, high-fat Ketogenic eating style. There are also other factors that go into the change, such as feeling full for longer, making everything from scratch, and completely abandoning sugar in all forms.1
-
ogmomma2012 wrote: »My cholesterol became normal with a low-carb, high-fat Ketogenic eating style. There are also other factors that go into the change, such as feeling full for longer, making everything from scratch, and completely abandoning sugar in all forms.
so you ate a 0 curb diet, not a low carb diet?3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.0 -
After several months on LCHF my cholesterol was 278, LDL 177. Very scary.2
-
aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As I've come to expect, you're having such a hard time absorbing information that conflicts with your beliefs, that once again, you've resorted to misquoting studies. Are you that desperate or do you think we're gullible?
This is the study I referenced, that @stevencloser posted - http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
Fats and Fatty Acid Requirements for Adults
And here's what they said in the last section (which I quoted before but you clearly didn't read)
"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
In case you're still not comprehending this, the study that found Koreans eat on average less than 20% fat which falls within the recommendations of the Korean Nutrition Society. So, not only is there NO warning against eating under 20% fat, they're saying for certain populations, more fat, even moderate levels, ARE a risk factor for heart disease.
Why don't you go tell Koreans that their diet is as you say "unpalatable for the average person, unlikely to provide EFAs and affecting their brain function, mood and hormones".
Or you could open your mind...just a little bit?
And as far as how long I've been doing this, I grew up eating a traditional non-western diet low in fat, low in meat, high in starches for 24 yrs, never got fat, moved to the US after college, ate more fat, got fat, cholesterol went up and after several years fumbling about, I've finally started connecting the dots, and figured out that I'm better off going back to a similar diet as the one I grew up eating, high carb, low fat. It's how my parents still eat and they're well into their 70s, normal weight, no diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Long enough of a history for ya?
As far as Koreans, eating a diet rich in seafood probably does much to prevent deficiency in EFAs. You stated you keep your fat intake below 15% (not recommended by any study that anyone has shared). How do you prevent deficiency? How do you get enough DHA?
You don't need a study, you just plug your food into Cronometer.com. It lists omega-3 and omega-6 fats. And it says I'm good. That's how I prevent deficiencies of any kind, by eating nutrient dense foods and checking on cronometer to be certain. The only thing I don't get enough of from my food is vitamin b12, and it's the only thing I supplement.
3 -
triciagrey1955 wrote: »After several months on LCHF my cholesterol was 278, LDL 177. Very scary.
Virtually identical to what mine were on lchf. According to @aqsylvester, she suggests that you shouldn't be afraid of your cholesterol numbers (which is easy for her to say given her's are normal). Instead, from her advice on page 1, she says if you should instead focus on getting enough sleep and reducing stress etc. Yeah, that's total BS!!
If you've already fixed the problem, then good for you. If not and want to lower it, then reduce saturated fat in your diet. It doesn't have to be drastic, just remove or reduce items that don't contribute any nutrition (vitamins/minerals) such as butter, oils etc.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As I've come to expect, you're having such a hard time absorbing information that conflicts with your beliefs, that once again, you've resorted to misquoting studies. Are you that desperate or do you think we're gullible?
This is the study I referenced, that @stevencloser posted - http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
Fats and Fatty Acid Requirements for Adults
And here's what they said in the last section (which I quoted before but you clearly didn't read)
"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
In case you're still not comprehending this, the study that found Koreans eat on average less than 20% fat which falls within the recommendations of the Korean Nutrition Society. So, not only is there NO warning against eating under 20% fat, they're saying for certain populations, more fat, even moderate levels, ARE a risk factor for heart disease.
Why don't you go tell Koreans that their diet is as you say "unpalatable for the average person, unlikely to provide EFAs and affecting their brain function, mood and hormones".
Or you could open your mind...just a little bit?
And as far as how long I've been doing this, I grew up eating a traditional non-western diet low in fat, low in meat, high in starches for 24 yrs, never got fat, moved to the US after college, ate more fat, got fat, cholesterol went up and after several years fumbling about, I've finally started connecting the dots, and figured out that I'm better off going back to a similar diet as the one I grew up eating, high carb, low fat. It's how my parents still eat and they're well into their 70s, normal weight, no diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Long enough of a history for ya?
As far as Koreans, eating a diet rich in seafood probably does much to prevent deficiency in EFAs. You stated you keep your fat intake below 15% (not recommended by any study that anyone has shared). How do you prevent deficiency? How do you get enough DHA?
You don't need a study, you just plug your food into Cronometer.com. It lists omega-3 and omega-6 fats. And it says I'm good. That's how I prevent deficiencies of any kind, by eating nutrient dense foods and checking on cronometer to be certain. The only thing I don't get enough of from my food is vitamin b12, and it's the only thing I supplement.
Interesting. What is your typical omega 3 to omega 6 ratio? Also, I'm sure you realize there are many types of omega 3--many vegetarians, for example, are specifically lacking DHA and EPA and require supplementation.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »triciagrey1955 wrote: »After several months on LCHF my cholesterol was 278, LDL 177. Very scary.
Virtually identical to what mine were on lchf. According to @aqsylvester, she suggests that you shouldn't be afraid of your cholesterol numbers (which is easy for her to say given her's are normal). Instead, from her advice on page 1, she says if you should instead focus on getting enough sleep and reducing stress etc. Yeah, that's total BS!!
If you've already fixed the problem, then good for you. If not and want to lower it, then reduce saturated fat in your diet. It doesn't have to be drastic, just remove or reduce items that don't contribute any nutrition (vitamins/minerals) such as butter, oils etc.
Please go back and read the thread, I said to ask for a NMR lipid panel, and also consider more meaningful risk factors, like CAC score, insulin resistance, or markers of inflammation, among other things. Telling people they just need to cut out saturated fat to prevent heart disease is the real BS.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.4
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