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.
Keto diet = good or bad
Replies
-
In the studies I linked? I don't see it, although I am aware that there are studies out there that do state the reverse.
Eggs are good. Eggs are bad. Eggs are good, oops, they are bad again....3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Who is arguing that refined and highly processed carbohydrates improve health or are associated with better health? There's a term for arguing against a claim that nobody is making . . .
If you think refined and highly processed carbs are not contributors to poor or neutral health, I assumed one would think it is a positive contributor. I cant see another option. My point is that I have not seen any benefits to health.
The only benefits to health for the typical person of refined and highly processed carbohydrates, that I know of, is that it has calories.
I have yet to see anyone on here advocate for a diet consisting only of highly processed carbs, so again you seem to be moving the goalposts. If someone ate nothing but highly processed carbs, would that be a bad thing? Yeah, probably. That can also be said about any other food as well though, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I can eat highly processed carbs in addition to a wide variety of other foods and still have a healthy diet. In fact, I honestly believe my diet now is healthier than if I was to completely exclude them because they make me happy, and my diet is more sustainable that way.
You are moving the goal posts: I did not say anyone ate a diet of all refined and highly processed carbs either.
This quote was in response to someone saying SFA causes cancer. It does not.
Then someone else stated their opinion that " the only foods they see being demonized these days are sugar, carbs and 'whites foods'". My response to that was that refined and highly processed carbs are not being demonized if they are not good for you. Many plant foods are quite healthful. R+HP carbs are not. I also said that sfas are still commonly demonized, although it is declining.
I doubt your diet is healthier including R+HP carbs, than if you replaced it with some other whole food. Your diet is probably healthy enough to carry you despite that. Just like my diet is hopefully healthy enough to carry the fact that I eat pepperoni or bacon on most days.
Few people have a perfectly healthy diet. Some food items are healthier than others. Including small amounts of theses healthy items is less likely to do damage than including large amounts of those foods in a diet. We hedge our bets based on what we know or believe is true in nutrition science, and our own personal and health experience.
I already have plenty of whole foods in my diet. I like to have variety. I don't want to get bored with my diet or feel restricted. It is good for my mental health to be happy with what I eat, and positive mental health is a huge part of overall health. I am extremely active and do plenty of strength training and kickboxing and because of that I feel like I can enjoy all sorts of foods. It was nice of you to point out that my diet could be healthier, but I am going to do my own thing. Thanks.
I just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.
Because it is proven that a diet of moderation in all things, including processed foods, is the healthiest diet for all? Or even some? Funnily enough, that is more dogma than anything.
I'm sure some people make moderation work great, but is that because of the diet or in spite of the diet? It's more popular than keto, I'll give you that...
Nope. If you read what I wrote in a prior post I said I advocate a varied, balanced, nutrient dense diet with treats in moderation but specified that the macro focus and what a person defines as a treat and “in moderation” would vary by individual.
Look we all know you have adopted an extreme way of eating that has had health benefits for you. That does not make a diet that doesn’t exclude carbs bad for the vast majority of people. It also doesn’t make a carnivore diet “healthier” for those who don’t have the same medicinal issues that you have. You can claim the opposite all you want but the fact remains that an all meat and oil diet can not possibly offer the variety of foods and nutrients that a diet that includes fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, etc - even if some of those are “processed” .
And LOL that those of us who practice moderation are healthy in spite of our diet.
I don't know what previous post you are referring to. I was referring to thisI just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.
Where I felt you implied that a diet with moderation is all things, supposedly balanced, is better than not eating all things.
My stance in this latest go around on is keto good or bad, is that refined and processed foods are not healthful (we can include many seed oils in that too). If you include those in your diet, they most likely will not make any positive contributions to your health. Will small amounts make people sick? Probably not. Will larger frequent amounts? Quite possibly. Are whole food carbs nutritionally superior to refined and processed carbs (and fats)? Yes.
I'm drinking a diet Dr Pepper right now. I know it is not contributing to better health except possibly in the fact that it replaced a less healthy item like a normal Dr Pepper. I am healthy in spite of that food in my diet. At least for now. Maybe one day the aspartame will pickle my brain or something...
Some foods are healthier than others. They have more nutrition to them. That's my argument.
That was literally WMDs argument. You can incorporate processed foods and still be healthy by all means. Its when processed foods crowd nutrient dense foods.
... Yes, I realize that. It was partially what I was saying.Also, SFA is not in too much different of a light compared to processed carbs. Studies aren't showing the benefits of SFA. They are showing benefits of Omega 3 PUFA, MUFA, whole grains, fruits and veggies.
The studies I linked to were to show SFA's do not cause poor health and that refined and processed carbs do not correlate to good health. That's it.
Yes and when you look at foods that improve health, what are they? Veggies, fruits, whole grains, MUFA, PUFA (Omega 3). Things that are neutral (SFA)? Things that may be harmful in large quantities? Processed foods.
That is the point i am making. And the point is, if you want a diet that maximizes "benefits" what should you eat? Or better yet what should you limit?
In general, increase fibrous foods, increase fish, whole grains/oats and oils like olive and flax. Pretty much Mediterranean Diet. But what this doesn't address is the other parts, which is what diet can make you compliant which supercedes all.
And yes, your situation is a bit unique and not the norm when it comes to the general populous. So you have to modify.
Those foods often look good but not always. And not for everyone. Look deeper.
If one is perfectly healthy, sure, those foods are fine. Since that is the minority, I do not think grass seeds or a lot if fruit , or most PUFAs from seed oils, should be the default recommendations. The last stat I saw was that 88% of the population is metabolically unhealthy, which is even higher than I ever predicted. https://worldhealth.net/news/only-12-american-adults-are-metabolically-healthy/
What you would maximize is different than what I would maximize. I had IR and autoimmune diseases - I may be more of the norm than you, who appears to have always been metabolically healthy. Pardon me if I remembered incorrectly. But since neither of us is advocating refined and processed foods, let us agree to disagree since nutrition is a far from proven science.
Plants, whole grains, and fish (PUFA Omega 3 like i mentioned) are all correlated to good health. Flaxseed Oil and soybean oil have moderate amounts of Omega 3. Similarly, walnuts and chia seeds tend to round out the top ten. But most of the focus is on fish. I am not suggesting PUFA Omega 6s.. like salad dressings. Its why I wrote it in the manner i did. And people should ensure they get adequate protein.
ETA: still the primary focus should be weight loss and exercise. The latter is a key component in the study you referenced.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Who is arguing that refined and highly processed carbohydrates improve health or are associated with better health? There's a term for arguing against a claim that nobody is making . . .
If you think refined and highly processed carbs are not contributors to poor or neutral health, I assumed one would think it is a positive contributor. I cant see another option. My point is that I have not seen any benefits to health.
The only benefits to health for the typical person of refined and highly processed carbohydrates, that I know of, is that it has calories.
I have yet to see anyone on here advocate for a diet consisting only of highly processed carbs, so again you seem to be moving the goalposts. If someone ate nothing but highly processed carbs, would that be a bad thing? Yeah, probably. That can also be said about any other food as well though, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I can eat highly processed carbs in addition to a wide variety of other foods and still have a healthy diet. In fact, I honestly believe my diet now is healthier than if I was to completely exclude them because they make me happy, and my diet is more sustainable that way.
You are moving the goal posts: I did not say anyone ate a diet of all refined and highly processed carbs either.
This quote was in response to someone saying SFA causes cancer. It does not.
Then someone else stated their opinion that " the only foods they see being demonized these days are sugar, carbs and 'whites foods'". My response to that was that refined and highly processed carbs are not being demonized if they are not good for you. Many plant foods are quite healthful. R+HP carbs are not. I also said that sfas are still commonly demonized, although it is declining.
I doubt your diet is healthier including R+HP carbs, than if you replaced it with some other whole food. Your diet is probably healthy enough to carry you despite that. Just like my diet is hopefully healthy enough to carry the fact that I eat pepperoni or bacon on most days.
Few people have a perfectly healthy diet. Some food items are healthier than others. Including small amounts of theses healthy items is less likely to do damage than including large amounts of those foods in a diet. We hedge our bets based on what we know or believe is true in nutrition science, and our own personal and health experience.
I already have plenty of whole foods in my diet. I like to have variety. I don't want to get bored with my diet or feel restricted. It is good for my mental health to be happy with what I eat, and positive mental health is a huge part of overall health. I am extremely active and do plenty of strength training and kickboxing and because of that I feel like I can enjoy all sorts of foods. It was nice of you to point out that my diet could be healthier, but I am going to do my own thing. Thanks.
I just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.
Because it is proven that a diet of moderation in all things, including processed foods, is the healthiest diet for all? Or even some? Funnily enough, that is more dogma than anything.
I'm sure some people make moderation work great, but is that because of the diet or in spite of the diet? It's more popular than keto, I'll give you that...
Nope. If you read what I wrote in a prior post I said I advocate a varied, balanced, nutrient dense diet with treats in moderation but specified that the macro focus and what a person defines as a treat and “in moderation” would vary by individual.
Look we all know you have adopted an extreme way of eating that has had health benefits for you. That does not make a diet that doesn’t exclude carbs bad for the vast majority of people. It also doesn’t make a carnivore diet “healthier” for those who don’t have the same medicinal issues that you have. You can claim the opposite all you want but the fact remains that an all meat and oil diet can not possibly offer the variety of foods and nutrients that a diet that includes fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, etc - even if some of those are “processed” .
And LOL that those of us who practice moderation are healthy in spite of our diet.
I don't know what previous post you are referring to. I was referring to thisI just love the irony of a person who eats virtually no fruits or vegetables lecturing people who eat all foods including some processed foods in moderation about what a healthy diet is.
Where I felt you implied that a diet with moderation is all things, supposedly balanced, is better than not eating all things.
My stance in this latest go around on is keto good or bad, is that refined and processed foods are not healthful (we can include many seed oils in that too). If you include those in your diet, they most likely will not make any positive contributions to your health. Will small amounts make people sick? Probably not. Will larger frequent amounts? Quite possibly. Are whole food carbs nutritionally superior to refined and processed carbs (and fats)? Yes.
I'm drinking a diet Dr Pepper right now. I know it is not contributing to better health except possibly in the fact that it replaced a less healthy item like a normal Dr Pepper. I am healthy in spite of that food in my diet. At least for now. Maybe one day the aspartame will pickle my brain or something...
Some foods are healthier than others. They have more nutrition to them. That's my argument.
That was literally WMDs argument. You can incorporate processed foods and still be healthy by all means. Its when processed foods crowd nutrient dense foods.
... Yes, I realize that. It was partially what I was saying.Also, SFA is not in too much different of a light compared to processed carbs. Studies aren't showing the benefits of SFA. They are showing benefits of Omega 3 PUFA, MUFA, whole grains, fruits and veggies.
The studies I linked to were to show SFA's do not cause poor health and that refined and processed carbs do not correlate to good health. That's it.
Yes and when you look at foods that improve health, what are they? Veggies, fruits, whole grains, MUFA, PUFA (Omega 3). Things that are neutral (SFA)? Things that may be harmful in large quantities? Processed foods.
That is the point i am making. And the point is, if you want a diet that maximizes "benefits" what should you eat? Or better yet what should you limit?
In general, increase fibrous foods, increase fish, whole grains/oats and oils like olive and flax. Pretty much Mediterranean Diet. But what this doesn't address is the other parts, which is what diet can make you compliant which supercedes all.
And yes, your situation is a bit unique and not the norm when it comes to the general populous. So you have to modify.
Those foods often look good but not always. And not for everyone. Look deeper.
If one is perfectly healthy, sure, those foods are fine. Since that is the minority, I do not think grass seeds or a lot if fruit , or most PUFAs from seed oils, should be the default recommendations. The last stat I saw was that 88% of the population is metabolically unhealthy, which is even higher than I ever predicted. https://worldhealth.net/news/only-12-american-adults-are-metabolically-healthy/
What you would maximize is different than what I would maximize. I had IR and autoimmune diseases - I may be more of the norm than you, who appears to have always been metabolically healthy. Pardon me if I remembered incorrectly. But since neither of us is advocating refined and processed foods, let us agree to disagree since nutrition is a far from proven science.
Plants, whole grains, and fish (PUFA Omega 3 like i mentioned) are all correlated to good health. Flaxseed Oil and soybean oil have moderate amounts of Omega 3. Similarly, walnuts and chia seeds tend to round out the top ten. But most of the focus is on fish. I am not suggesting PUFA Omega 6s.. like salad dressings. Its why I wrote it in the manner i did. And people should ensure they get adequate protein.
ETA: still the primary focus should be weight loss and exercise. The latter is a key component in the study you referenced.
I'm with you on the fish... We agreed on something.
1 -
In the studies I linked? I don't see it, although I am aware that there are studies out there that do state the reverse.
Eggs are good. Eggs are bad. Eggs are good, oops, they are bad again....
Yeah that’s what I meant to say. Not for that particular study.1 -
Limits my tasty carbs and fat is inferior to carbs for energy so it is bad in my opinion.9
-
Something about it makes me sad, I don't know why.
I tried it and the "keto flu" set in after 4 days. I really felt like I was going to die. Came close to passing out a number of times. Couldn't walk farther than a block without having to sit down. And I know, I know. Eat plenty of salt they say. Take magnesium supplements. Drink lots of water. Get plenty of rest. I did all that and the keto sickness just got worse. I made it to day 10 and then figured I'd write out my obituary and pay the funeral home in advance or just start eating a minimum of 100 carbs a day. I chose the carbs and within a single day I was okay again. Sorry, but I really felt I was in some sort of danger zone healthwise with keto. A year later I tried it again and the exact same thing happened on day 4 with the same misery.
Never again.
And the worst part was, I was a hungry animal. The fats didn't sate me at all. And I was eating between 1,400 and 1,600 weighed and measured calories a day. Maybe I would have needed to give it more time to see if high fat could reduce my appetite, but for sure 10 days didn't do it.
Anyhow, that's my story and based on what I experienced personally, I wouldn't recommend keto to anyone. But I believe some people feel good on it and benefit from it so I won't knock it in any absolute way. I believe that people doing keto for the long term are benefiting from it or they wouldn't be doing it.12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?5 -
For me, it has always come down to how I feel. I have never done Keto, and I think a lot of people who say they are doing it really aren't. I would call myself "carb conscious" because I do definitely measure macros and tend to stay at a lower carb consumption than most, but its all because of how I feel when I eat CERTAIN carbs. I know very well that I could fit pastas, breads, candy, alcohol into my calorie count but I just don't feel as good as when I limit those foods and most carbs period. Carbs also can be triggers for me so I have to be very careful of the mindset I am in when I eat them as to not lead to over-eating, binges, etc. In my personal, non-scientific, opinion - this is why "keto" or low-carb works for a lot of people. They are sort of eliminating a lot of their food triggers. That is what I've seen in my social circle anyways. My friend trades beer for vodka soda, he only drinks 2 or 3, versus 7-8. So it's still a calorie deficit of course, but changing the structure of his macros helps him stay within the calorie deficit.
Carbs aren't bad, fat isn't bad. Of course it isn't. I became over weight the last few years for several reasons, and those reasons led me to not being in a caloric deficit. You can call the lack of caloric deficit the root, or you can call the lack of pain management the root, or you can call PTSD the root, or you can call EDs the root. I think everyone would be right. Because honestly, I'm not going to be able to stay in a caloric deficit if all of the other items above are being worked on and getting fixed, but once everything is headed in the right direction I will only lose weight if in a caloric deficit. A warped cause and effect I guess? I can see it from all sides, I think we just need to be kind, honest, open minded and patient with each other when giving advice about weight loss.5 -
I don't think anyone who not studied the keto diet has any place in this discussion. My spouse has lost 40 pounds and I have lost 10 on the program. We follow Dr. Annette Bosworth's protocol per her book, Anyway You Can. I have Stage 4 cancer and have seen an improvement in the blood work results. My husband has more energy and his "brain fog" has improved also. This is a program we feel we can stick to for an extended period of time. If you have not studied the program and tried it for yourself - please do not criticize. I agree there are many weigh loss diets out there - just find the one that works for you and stick with it.17
-
wandering44 wrote: »I don't think anyone who not studied the keto diet has any place in this discussion. My spouse has lost 40 pounds and I have lost 10 on the program. We follow Dr. Annette Bosworth's protocol per her book, Anyway You Can. I have Stage 4 cancer and have seen an improvement in the blood work results. My husband has more energy and his "brain fog" has improved also. This is a program we feel we can stick to for an extended period of time. If you have not studied the program and tried it for yourself - please do not criticize. I agree there are many weigh loss diets out there - just find the one that works for you and stick with it.
I agree with you that people should refrain from expressing their opinion on keto if they don't know anything about it. I just disagree that one has to have *done* keto in order to have a valid opinion. It's possible for people to have valid opinions on things they've never personally done. Experirential knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge possible.
I know people who have never done keto who have a much better understanding of it and how it works than some people who have actually done it.
13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
Its probably a very small minority for those who do not do well with plants. I have yet to meet one in real life yet. In fact, you saying that is really the first time it has been brought to my attention.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it6 -
johnslater461 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it
I can't see anyone stepping up to fund such a study, so that really isn't at all surprising.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »wandering44 wrote: »I don't think anyone who not studied the keto diet has any place in this discussion. My spouse has lost 40 pounds and I have lost 10 on the program. We follow Dr. Annette Bosworth's protocol per her book, Anyway You Can. I have Stage 4 cancer and have seen an improvement in the blood work results. My husband has more energy and his "brain fog" has improved also. This is a program we feel we can stick to for an extended period of time. If you have not studied the program and tried it for yourself - please do not criticize. I agree there are many weigh loss diets out there - just find the one that works for you and stick with it.
I agree with you that people should refrain from expressing their opinion on keto if they don't know anything about it. I just disagree that one has to have *done* keto in order to have a valid opinion. It's possible for people to have valid opinions on things they've never personally done. Experirential knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge possible.
I know people who have never done keto who have a much better understanding of it and how it works than some people who have actually done it.
This. I don't have to personally jump off a cliff to know that the outcome likely wouldn't be good. I can research incidents where people have done so and what happened to them as a result and decide from there.
This really isn't a whole lot different.
Fats don't satiate me. So, that mere observation alone makes keto a non-starter for me.
And I've never said that keto is wrong or bad or useless for weight management. Just that it's not for everyone, and that some pretty extraordinary and not-currently-scientifically-supported claims seem to surround it that go way beyond simply losing weight. Claims that are confusing and misguided at best, and, in some cases, could detour people away from getting proper and prompt medical treatment and advice for issues that keto and/or intermittent fasting say they can address.
That keto and intermittent fasting seem to be the miracle combo of the year right now makes me equal parts sad and concerned for anyone who doesn't do their research before diving in. Which, honestly - judging from the questions about keto and IF that pop up here and on my other social media sites - way too many people seem to be jumping on that bandwagon simply because their friends are doing it and they've been innundated with all of the click bait 'miracles' that surround them.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
Its probably a very small minority for those who do not do well with plants. I have yet to meet one in real life yet. In fact, you saying that is really the first time it has been brought to my attention.
I would guess it really is quite a minority. And those who would do better without them, yet can tolerate small amounts, probably choose to eat plants because it is tasty, some are healthful, and it is a trendy and social acceptable good to eat.
TBH, I had no idea that I would do better without most plants until i tried it, and even now, i would not be considered to be a carnivore even though most if my food comes from animal. I had no idea that I would feel better when I dropped gluten from my diet too (celiac) or that low carb would be better for me too.
Anyways, I agree that it us only a small minority who should avoid all plants, but would guess that most of those people will never know because they are unwilling to try it.8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »wandering44 wrote: »I don't think anyone who not studied the keto diet has any place in this discussion. My spouse has lost 40 pounds and I have lost 10 on the program. We follow Dr. Annette Bosworth's protocol per her book, Anyway You Can. I have Stage 4 cancer and have seen an improvement in the blood work results. My husband has more energy and his "brain fog" has improved also. This is a program we feel we can stick to for an extended period of time. If you have not studied the program and tried it for yourself - please do not criticize. I agree there are many weigh loss diets out there - just find the one that works for you and stick with it.
I agree with you that people should refrain from expressing their opinion on keto if they don't know anything about it. I just disagree that one has to have *done* keto in order to have a valid opinion. It's possible for people to have valid opinions on things they've never personally done. Experirential knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge possible.
I know people who have never done keto who have a much better understanding of it and how it works than some people who have actually done it.
This. I don't have to personally jump off a cliff to know that the outcome likely wouldn't be good. I can research incidents where people have done so and what happened to them as a result and decide from there.
This really isn't a whole lot different.
Fats don't satiate me. So, that mere observation alone makes keto a non-starter for me.
And I've never said that keto is wrong or bad or useless for weight management. Just that it's not for everyone, and that some pretty extraordinary and not-currently-scientifically-supported claims seem to surround it that go way beyond simply losing weight. Claims that are confusing and misguided at best, and, in some cases, could detour people away from getting proper and prompt medical treatment and advice for issues that keto and/or intermittent fasting say they can address.
That keto and intermittent fasting seem to be the miracle combo of the year right now makes me equal parts sad and concerned for anyone who doesn't do their research before diving in. Which, honestly - judging from the questions about keto and IF that pop up here and on my other social media sites - way too many people seem to be jumping on that bandwagon simply because their friends are doing it and they've been innundated with all of the click bait 'miracles' that surround them.
This is true if all diets, including the WFPB/vegan/vegetarian diets that are trending right now too. The number of posts on has really grown over the past year.4 -
Its probably a very small minority for those who do not do well with plants. I have yet to meet one in real life yet. In fact, you saying that is really the first time it has been brought to my attention.
I would guess it really is quite a minority. And those who would do better without them, yet can tolerate small amounts, probably choose to eat plants because it is tasty, some are healthful, and it is a trendy and social acceptable good to eat.
TBH, I had no idea that I would do better without most plants until i tried it, and even now, i would not be considered to be a carnivore even though most if my food comes from animal. I had no idea that I would feel better when I dropped gluten from my diet too (celiac) or that low carb would be better for me too.
Anyways, I agree that it us only a small minority who should avoid all plants, but would guess that most of those people will never know because they are unwilling to try it.
Since I've been back on a ketogenic diet (3 weeks now) I have sort of unconsciously limited my daily plant/veggie intake, although I am eating a whole avocado a day (yes I know its really a fruit). One thing I have noticed that my gut seems to be handling the high fat consumption better then the previous times I've been keto. Maybe its the lack of all the plant based fibers.
3 -
baconslave wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it
I can't see anyone stepping up to fund such a study, so that really isn't at all surprising.
When I refer to "evidence," I don't even mean exclusively large-scale studies, even a case study documenting a case of an individual who is unable to tolerate plant-based foods would be a step in the direction of evidence. Basically, is there anything beyond people self-diagnosing that they cannot tolerate any plant foods in their diet?
Presumably for these people who are legitimately unable to tolerate plant foods, some of them have to have seen doctors or RDs. The fact that they cannot tolerate any plant food would be interesting to these professionals and presumably worth writing up to document, as medical professionals do with little known or previously undocumented conditions. I've seen people here, on reddit, and on youtube claim that a zero carbohydrate diet is the best option or even only option for them, but it seems to still be poorly understood as a documented nutritional strategy.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »baconslave wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it
I can't see anyone stepping up to fund such a study, so that really isn't at all surprising.
When I refer to "evidence," I don't even mean exclusively large-scale studies, even a case study documenting a case of an individual who is unable to tolerate plant-based foods would be a step in the direction of evidence. Basically, is there anything beyond people self-diagnosing that they cannot tolerate any plant foods in their diet?
Presumably for these people who are legitimately unable to tolerate plant foods, some of them have to have seen doctors or RDs. The fact that they cannot tolerate any plant food would be interesting to these professionals and presumably worth writing up to document, as medical professionals do with little known or previously undocumented conditions. I've seen people here, on reddit, and on youtube claim that a zero carbohydrate diet is the best option or even only option for them, but it seems to still be poorly understood as a documented nutritional strategy.
There are many n=1, but no case studies that I know of. I think it might be hard to get that write up. I reversed my hyperinsulinemia by going AGAINST my doctor and endocrinologist's dietary advice. I did the opposite and stopped going to those doctors who were giving me bad advice. Then I cut carbs even further. Now I do not go to the doctor for medical reasons very often because I am healthier. Situations like mine would be hard to turn into a case study.
They are undocumented conditions, just conditions that improve with dietary changes. Even T2D doctors are just recently, almost seemingly grudging, starting to admit that a low carb diet can reverse T2D without resorting to vlcd meal replacements or bariatric surgery. I doubt many rheumys are interested in diet for arthritis, or orthopedic surgeons who advise nutrition over surgery (besides Baker but he's just a "bit" unusual) or even many gastroenterologists who advise low or no plants rather than cooking your vege and getting lots of fibre. Most medical professionals aren't interested.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »baconslave wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it
I can't see anyone stepping up to fund such a study, so that really isn't at all surprising.
When I refer to "evidence," I don't even mean exclusively large-scale studies, even a case study documenting a case of an individual who is unable to tolerate plant-based foods would be a step in the direction of evidence. Basically, is there anything beyond people self-diagnosing that they cannot tolerate any plant foods in their diet?
Presumably for these people who are legitimately unable to tolerate plant foods, some of them have to have seen doctors or RDs. The fact that they cannot tolerate any plant food would be interesting to these professionals and presumably worth writing up to document, as medical professionals do with little known or previously undocumented conditions. I've seen people here, on reddit, and on youtube claim that a zero carbohydrate diet is the best option or even only option for them, but it seems to still be poorly understood as a documented nutritional strategy.
There are many n=1, but no case studies that I know of. I think it might be hard to get that write up. I reversed my hyperinsulinemia by going AGAINST my doctor and endocrinologist's dietary advice. I did the opposite and stopped going to those doctors who were giving me bad advice. Then I cut carbs even further. Now I do not go to the doctor for medical reasons very often because I am healthier. Situations like mine would be hard to turn into a case study.
They are undocumented conditions, just conditions that improve with dietary changes. Even T2D doctors are just recently, almost seemingly grudging, starting to admit that a low carb diet can reverse T2D without resorting to vlcd meal replacements or bariatric surgery. I doubt many rheumys are interested in diet for arthritis, or orthopedic surgeons who advise nutrition over surgery (besides Baker but he's just a "bit" unusual) or even many gastroenterologists who advise low or no plants rather than cooking your vege and getting lots of fibre. Most medical professionals aren't interested.
There are medical professionals who are very interested in evidence that diet can help manage or even eliminate health conditions. I personally am more familiar with those working on the implications of plant-based diets, but I am sure there are medical professionals that would also be interested in documenting zero carbohydrate diets and the potential benefits associated with them.
Given that keto actually originated as a medical treatment and is well documented in regard to epilepsy, it seems odd to insist that the lack of evidence is because medical professionals can't be bothered to care. In the one instance where we know there is clear and compelling evidence that keto helps, medical professionals seem to have embraced the treatment and documented the results.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »baconslave wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it
I can't see anyone stepping up to fund such a study, so that really isn't at all surprising.
When I refer to "evidence," I don't even mean exclusively large-scale studies, even a case study documenting a case of an individual who is unable to tolerate plant-based foods would be a step in the direction of evidence. Basically, is there anything beyond people self-diagnosing that they cannot tolerate any plant foods in their diet?
Presumably for these people who are legitimately unable to tolerate plant foods, some of them have to have seen doctors or RDs. The fact that they cannot tolerate any plant food would be interesting to these professionals and presumably worth writing up to document, as medical professionals do with little known or previously undocumented conditions. I've seen people here, on reddit, and on youtube claim that a zero carbohydrate diet is the best option or even only option for them, but it seems to still be poorly understood as a documented nutritional strategy.
There are many n=1, but no case studies that I know of. I think it might be hard to get that write up. I reversed my hyperinsulinemia by going AGAINST my doctor and endocrinologist's dietary advice. I did the opposite and stopped going to those doctors who were giving me bad advice. Then I cut carbs even further. Now I do not go to the doctor for medical reasons very often because I am healthier. Situations like mine would be hard to turn into a case study.
They are undocumented conditions, just conditions that improve with dietary changes. Even T2D doctors are just recently, almost seemingly grudging, starting to admit that a low carb diet can reverse T2D without resorting to vlcd meal replacements or bariatric surgery. I doubt many rheumys are interested in diet for arthritis, or orthopedic surgeons who advise nutrition over surgery (besides Baker but he's just a "bit" unusual) or even many gastroenterologists who advise low or no plants rather than cooking your vege and getting lots of fibre. Most medical professionals aren't interested.
There are medical professionals who are very interested in evidence that diet can help manage or even eliminate health conditions. I personally am more familiar with those working on the implications of plant-based diets, but I am sure there are medical professionals that would also be interested in documenting zero carbohydrate diets and the potential benefits associated with them.
Given that keto actually originated as a medical treatment and is well documented in regard to epilepsy, it seems odd to insist that the lack of evidence is because medical professionals can't be bothered to care. In the one instance where we know there is clear and compelling evidence that keto helps, medical professionals seem to have embraced the treatment and documented the results.
I'm sure there are some. I've never met any, but I am sure they exist, but I agree that most are following the WFPB trend right now.
I disagree with your second paragraph. Keto was not "designed' to treat epilepsy. That is merely the first time, beyond weight loss, that a ketogenic diet was used to successfully treat a disease. It was also used to "treat" T1D before insulin was invented.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »baconslave wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Science has also found that a diet high in saturated fat is directly related to higher incidence of colon cancer, and that high consumption of red meat plays a large role. As someone with a high risk based on family history I would never in my life consider keto. It is not the right path for everyone.
I'm afraid that this is not correct.
Processed meats like bacon are found to to correlate with a 20% increased risk of colon cancer, which means that the risk rises from 5 to 6%.
A diet high is saturated fat has NOT been found to cause colon cancer, nor does it correlate to increased risk. The meat preservatives appear to be the problem, and not the meat. Saying that saturated fat is the problem is incorrect, but it is mainly the fault of poor journalism or those with an anti meat agenda.
But, if you do have evidence that saturated fat causes cancer, please share it. As someone who eats a lot if red meat, I would be curious to read it
I think with the exception of transfat, this can literally be said about everything. Science suggest correlations because all of this is multifaceted. Its no different than the stuff you say about refined carbs. Because one can consume lots of them and still become metabolically healthy.
Its why all diets produce similar results. The difference between all of these diets is minimal.
It could be said about everything, but it is usually the higher fat, and foods with higher saturated fats, that are demonized: red meat, eggs, full fat dairy, coconut or palm oil. It is marginally better now, but most people still wrongly think that red meat or coconut, foods that people have been eating for thousands of years, is bad for you.
Refined and highly processed foods, including many seed oils, are relatively new to our diet and have not shown themselves to be harmless, even in epidemiological studies. At best, they are neutral. At worst, frequent consumption appears to proceed or accompany poor health or diease.
LOL I think the pendulum has swung pretty hard the other way in that the only foods I see demonized these days are sugar, carbs, and “white foods”... totally ignoring that many of the examples provided contain as many calories from fat as from carbs... yet look how your own post ends...
My response was to correct some common misinformation. Saturated fats have never been proven to hurt health, and the only correlation it has to poor health is when preserved and highly processed (like bacon) or when consumed with highly refined and processed carbs (baked deserts). If you remove those factors, saturated fats are harmless.
On the other hand, refined and highly processed carbohydrates do not appear to be as harmless as saturated fat, as seen often in less reliable epidemiological studies and a few rcts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996878/
But if you have something that shows refined and highly processed carbs improve health, or are associated with better health, I would be interested to read it.
I have never denied that eating too many calories make you fat. I have said in the past that high fat and high carb together is a recipe for weight gain, but in what you are quoting me, I was talking about the health effects of foods and not eating too much (aka CI>CO) or comparing calories.
Do you realize that first link you posted goes against a lot of what you believe, especially as you have dipped more into carnivore?
My personal favorite:On the other hand, recent clinical trial and epidemiologic evidence suggests that a diet with moderately restricted carbohydrate intake but rich in vegetable fat and vegetable protein improves blood lipid profile (10) and is associated with lower risk of IHD in the long term (11). Benefits of the plant-based, low-carbohydrate diet are likely to stem from higher intake of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, and micronutrients as well as the reduced GL in the dietary pattern.
Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates.
So essentially, reduce and replaced processed carbs with whole carbs or plant based fats. And focus on PLANT BASED proteins, fats and fiber.
So no one would argue that processed carbs or processed fat is beneficial. Focus on whole foods is going to yield much better results. Also, modulating carbs based on adherence, personal satiety cues, and athletic performance needs.
ETA:
And from your second link:In summary, replacing dietary intake of SFA with refined starches has little effect on the risk of CHD. However, consumption of added sugars, especially of SSBs, may have a stronger association with risk than either SFA or refined starches. When SFA are replaced with whole grains, risk of CHD is decreased. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the absolute and relative importance of these different components of the diet. A growing weight of authoritative opinion is emerging that supports these conclusions [29,30,31].
How about that. Replacing SFA with whole grains (from cereals) does reduce the risk of CHD.
Essentially, while the correlations of SFA and CHD are low or not founded, you still see improved health when replacing SFA with other nutrients like PUFAs or whole grains.
Meh, it's pretty tough to find a link that supports everything I have experienced for myself. The links show what I intended: refined and highly processed carbs are foods best avoided or limited.
I have never denied that increasing plants and pufas happens to lower ldl, nor that past (poor) studies associated that with reduced cvd risk due to lowering of ldl (presuming ldl contributes to cvd). But I consider ldl to be the weakest of all associations to cvd risk, way behind HDL, triglycerides, crop, cac score and whether or not someone has hyperinsulinemia.
Pufas do lower ldl but that doesn't help CV health. Replacing sfa with whole grains does not lower risk of chd either - it only lowers ldl . You are conflating a weak association with causation.
Pufas also raise all cause mortality and raises your risk of developing cancer. I'll stick with more SFAs than recommended.
Plus the recommendation of a wfpb diet is over SAD. It is not shown that wfpb is better than wf-animal-based. I don't deny that wfpb can be healthy if supplemented properly, but it won't beat animal product heavy diets, nutritionally speaking.
Its amazing how you ignore what is written in favor of your own agenda. I literally copy and pasted what your cohert study suggested. The data suggested a 10-20% reduction in CHD disease when replacing SFA with whole grains. That is statistically significant. So adding more SFA does nothing to improve health. At best, its nuetral.
And it is amazing how you forget that correlation =/= causation.
You know that any number if factors can cause this reduced risk factor of 10-20% ( not cutting cases of CHD by 10-20% as you implied). Perhaps saturated fat is implicated because they slather butter on their bread. Who knows. Maybe they replaced spam and bread with salmon and wild rice.
Its amazing that you keep saying something we know and i have said in this thread. All science is correlation not causation. Its because its based on a various evidence that doesn't have 100% to all the factors in all human scenarios.
You can certainly choose to ignore the evidence. That is ok. That is your choice. But the evidence, that you post, is that whole grains (cereal) is better for "you" that SFA. This is something you often suggest, in other threads, is correlated with increased CVD. And there is tons of evidence to suggest that fiber is highly correlated with improved health. Yet again, something that is non essential. Meat is non essential. Oils are non essential. Just because they are non essential doesn't meat that dont have impacts. Fiber is positively correlated to improved health. Several oils (like flax or olive) are also correlated to improved health. Meat does not have the same correlations.
Let's just leave it at epidemiological studies prove nothing.
You cherry picked a few sentences that seem to say that plant = good. The sentences before it saidA very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (eg, percentage of energy < 20% from fat and >70% from carbohydrates), once typical in traditional Asian populations, has the potential to be cardioprotective if most of the carbohydrates come from minimally processed grains, legumes, and vegetables and if the population is lean and active (and thus has low insulin resistance). However, such a diet is difficult to maintain long term. A very-low-fat diet may also increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke (9)...
which is a less positive correlation.
I know that there are correlations that show fibre is good, meat is evil and that all PUFAs are great. But it is not proof, although it is often stated as such. There are also correlations showing that fibre increases stomach upset (while creating the same nutrients that animal foods may provide) and that meat has no correlation to cvd (in the paper you quoted as well as the others). I am not ignoring the evidence. I believe that what you are calling "evidence" is not. I disagree with your hypothesis. You seem to think it is conclusive evidence. We will have to agree to disagree.
There are dozens of meta analyses that show positive effects of fiber? Where are the ones about SFA or meat (and btw, i am a huge red meat eater). And i never said meat = CVD. I said that there are not additional benefits demonstrated by consuming lots of red meat.
Those meta analysis (which show a correlation to goo health, not a cause) are on diets that need it: diets with a fair bit of carbs. For diets with very little or no carbs, there is no predicted benefit.
I'm all for whole foods. If one can tolerate or benefit from plant based foods, I think whole foods are the way to go. Something about them, it could be the fibre, may be beneficial. More beneficial than foods that are not plant based? Its possible in a well planned diet.
And I dont believe I wrote meat = CVD . But I am glad you never said that either.
The benefit that I see from eating red meat is protein and nutrients - it is a very nutrient dense food. But again, no one is advocating for "consuming lots of red meat" either.
Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that there are human beings who cannot tolerate a diet that includes plant-based foods?
I know there is a (relatively small?) group of carnivores online now who claim to be unable to tolerate plant-based foods in any amount. But beyond these online claims, is there anything else?
How well one does with plants appears to vary on a person by person basis, with those with autoimmune issues seeming to have problems that others do not experience.
The amount of people who can tolerate zero plants seems to be small. Omnivorous is the most common, by far.
So what you're saying is no, you don't have any non anecdotal evidence.
Got it
I can't see anyone stepping up to fund such a study, so that really isn't at all surprising.
When I refer to "evidence," I don't even mean exclusively large-scale studies, even a case study documenting a case of an individual who is unable to tolerate plant-based foods would be a step in the direction of evidence. Basically, is there anything beyond people self-diagnosing that they cannot tolerate any plant foods in their diet?
Presumably for these people who are legitimately unable to tolerate plant foods, some of them have to have seen doctors or RDs. The fact that they cannot tolerate any plant food would be interesting to these professionals and presumably worth writing up to document, as medical professionals do with little known or previously undocumented conditions. I've seen people here, on reddit, and on youtube claim that a zero carbohydrate diet is the best option or even only option for them, but it seems to still be poorly understood as a documented nutritional strategy.
There are many n=1, but no case studies that I know of. I think it might be hard to get that write up. I reversed my hyperinsulinemia by going AGAINST my doctor and endocrinologist's dietary advice. I did the opposite and stopped going to those doctors who were giving me bad advice. Then I cut carbs even further. Now I do not go to the doctor for medical reasons very often because I am healthier. Situations like mine would be hard to turn into a case study.
They are undocumented conditions, just conditions that improve with dietary changes. Even T2D doctors are just recently, almost seemingly grudging, starting to admit that a low carb diet can reverse T2D without resorting to vlcd meal replacements or bariatric surgery. I doubt many rheumys are interested in diet for arthritis, or orthopedic surgeons who advise nutrition over surgery (besides Baker but he's just a "bit" unusual) or even many gastroenterologists who advise low or no plants rather than cooking your vege and getting lots of fibre. Most medical professionals aren't interested.
There are medical professionals who are very interested in evidence that diet can help manage or even eliminate health conditions. I personally am more familiar with those working on the implications of plant-based diets, but I am sure there are medical professionals that would also be interested in documenting zero carbohydrate diets and the potential benefits associated with them.
Given that keto actually originated as a medical treatment and is well documented in regard to epilepsy, it seems odd to insist that the lack of evidence is because medical professionals can't be bothered to care. In the one instance where we know there is clear and compelling evidence that keto helps, medical professionals seem to have embraced the treatment and documented the results.
I'm sure there are some. I've never met any, but I am sure they exist, but I agree that most are following the WFPB trend right now.
I disagree with your second paragraph. Keto was not "designed' to treat epilepsy. That is merely the first time, beyond weight loss, that a ketogenic diet was used to successfully treat a disease. It was also used to "treat" T1D before insulin was invented.
Thanks for the correction, I could have phrased that better. My point was that there is a good example of a health condition that can, in many cases, be managed with keto and the medical profession has recognized it, documented it, and recommends it. So if the argument is that medical professionals aren't interested in seeing any connection between diet and health conditions, I'd want to understand why this didn't apply in this case.
8 -
susan23629 wrote: »It can help people with autoimmune diseases. Following a lower carb diet helps reduce inflammation. You don’t have to follow Atkins or Keto though and be as extreme and still get the health benefits.
Yep. That right there. I have Hashimoto's and the foods that agitate me the most are full of carbs. I do best when I avoid them. But, that's me and my special situation.1 -
My experience with keto is positive. My friend struggling with myocitis (autoimmune) disease tried keto together (uner 30 carbs a day) for 6 months. I lot 18 lbs and she lost weight and was able to drop the amount of steroids she took daily. I transitioned to LCHF at 100 grams of carbs a day or less, which is more enjoyable and manageable long-term for me. I get my carbs from vegetables (and wine! :-) 2x a week). It's working for me.0
-
I was against the Keto diet for so long, my husband wanted to try it out so I decided to try some of the meals. Now I'm hooked. I'm a type 1 diabetic and it's not officially recommended for T1. I've never had such good blood sugar levels, I'm no longer hungry ALL the time. I can, for the first time since my diagnosis, not have to worry about missing a meal and having serious consequences. I agree that it's not for everyone but if it's working for you and you're feeling good, keep it up. I do have to say I still eat a LOT of veggies - low carb veggies! There's a lot of options that taste great.0
-
I was against the Keto diet for so long, my husband wanted to try it out so I decided to try some of the meals. Now I'm hooked. I'm a type 1 diabetic and it's not officially recommended for T1. I've never had such good blood sugar levels, I'm no longer hungry ALL the time. I can, for the first time since my diagnosis, not have to worry about missing a meal and having serious consequences. I agree that it's not for everyone but if it's working for you and you're feeling good, keep it up. I do have to say I still eat a LOT of veggies - low carb veggies! There's a lot of options that taste great.
Haveyou ever read Dr Richard Bernstein's work? He's a T1D and doctor who pioneered LCHF diets and home testing for T1Ds. Amazing work! http://www.diabetes-book.com/4 -
I’m sure for some people it’s good, but for me it would be awful. My gallbladder started giving me pain a few years ago, and a HIDA scan showed 5% or less ejection rate, which basically means it doesn’t work properly to secrete bile, causing the build up and pain when I eat fatty foods. Low fat diet only for me. ;(2
-
I was against the Keto diet for so long, my husband wanted to try it out so I decided to try some of the meals. Now I'm hooked. I'm a type 1 diabetic and it's not officially recommended for T1. I've never had such good blood sugar levels, I'm no longer hungry ALL the time. I can, for the first time since my diagnosis, not have to worry about missing a meal and having serious consequences. I agree that it's not for everyone but if it's working for you and you're feeling good, keep it up. I do have to say I still eat a LOT of veggies - low carb veggies! There's a lot of options that taste great.
Add me to the list of people who've had to change their ideas about low carb. I've always been skeptical of low carb diets, but a few weeks ago I was very frustrated with where I was at and on a whim decided to try it. I'm not at keto levels, (went from over 200g of carbs a day, down to 50g-75g net carb goal range), and I was hoping to take care of bloating issues/lose a couple pounds of weight creep that I hadn't been able to shake. What I wasn't expecting was the complete change to my appetite/hunger signals-its been a surreal experience! I now have to be intentional about eating, because it's just not even something I think of anymore. The bloating is completely gone and I've lost several pounds. I'm not tracking my calories but when I spot check I'm in the 1,200-1,400 range, which is giving me a deficit without me even trying. I'm now to the point where I'm going to have to be intentional about adding calories because I'm about ready to get below the low point of my maintenance range.
I also eat a lot of veggies, that paired with an increase in protein and fat, (went from fat free/low fat, to full fat), has completely changed the game for me. I'm curious to see if this continues the further along I go into my low carb experiment.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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