High fat diets

amberellen12

I was seeing some members are following diets that have a high fat content.

I was wondering doesn’t high fat cause vascular and coronary disease? Is it a worry for you? At my age, 60’s, I don’t know if I would follow the high fat.

No judgement just trying to figure out all the different diets.

kds10

I would think it would depend on the kind of fat...there are good fats and bad fats. Fat is no longer the enemy...sugar is worse.

quiksylver296

xxzenabxx

We need fats for healthy hormone production. It’s excessive calories and continuous overeating that leads to these sorts of conditions. My dad is doing keto and his bad cholesterol has gone down and he’s 52. Also as long as you avoid eating high amounts of trans fats you should be okay. He eats butter, ghee, eggs, full fat, fatty fish, meats, cheese etc

AnvilHead

kds10 wrote: »

Fat is no longer the enemy...sugar is worse.

So the current fad would have you believe.

quiksylver296

kds10 wrote: »

I would think it would depend on the kind of fat...there are good fats and bad fats. Fat is no longer the enemy...sugar is worse not the enemy, either.

FIFY

TeaBea

xxzenabxx wrote: »

We need fats for healthy hormone production. It’s excessive calories and continuous overeating that leads to these sorts of conditions. My dad is doing keto and his bad cholesterol has gone down and he’s 52. Also as long as you avoid eating high amounts of trans fats you should be okay. He eats butter, ghee, eggs, full fat, fatty fish, meats, cheese etc

Avoid eating trans fats....yes. But high quantities of saturated fat isn't okay for everyone.

https://www.uwhealth.org/health-wellness/the-skinny-on-saturated-fat/51461

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/saturated-fats

Sloth2016

1. There is no demonstrable connection between dietary fat and cardiovascular disease.
2. There is no demonstrable connection between dietary sugar and cardiovascular disease.
3. There is some indication that certain types of dietary fat can raise serum (blood) cholesterol both hdl (good) and ldl (bad) in some individuals, however, the effects observed are (i) specific to individuals; and (ii) vary by the type of fats consumed.

The mainstream advice consensus is:

1. Watch out for trans fats and reduce these sources (bakery, cookies, crackers etc.) in the diet.
2. Losing weight, getting sufficient daily physical activity, and quitting smoking are beneficial to your health.
3. If you have serum cholesterol concerns and/or family history of arteriosclerosis or cardiovascular disease, discuss this and possible courses of addressing it (statins, dietary modifications, activity levels, etc.) with your doctor.

Src.: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/prevention-and-treatment-of-high-cholesterol-hyperlipidemia/the-skinny-on-fats

estherdragonbat

What are your goals? If you're trying to lose weight, a calorie deficit is all that matters. The macro split comes in for matters of nutrition, health, satiety, various fitness goals, and likely some stuff I'm leaving out. If you're meeting your nutritional requirements on high-fat, then so long as you have no medical reason to avoid it, if it's something you find easy to stick to, go for it.

Some medical conditions require you to limit certain foods and increase others. As I understand it, high fat isn't the cause of coronary disease, but if you have a risk for the condition, you may be advised to limit it. And if you have the condition, a lower-fat diet may be one way to manage it. (As I understand it, high salt doesn't cause high blood pressure, but a lower-sodium diet can help you manage the condition if you've already got it. My personal data: I generally go significantly over the recommended sodium intake and my blood pressure has gone from the very borderline between pre-hypertensive and hypertensive to the lower side of normal as my weight dropped.)

Some people find that if they eat more fat, then they feel full on lower calories. (I'm not one of them, so a high-fat diet isn't for me. But there are plenty of people on these boards who've found it much easier to stick to their calories if they have more fat.)

As far as sugar, again if there's no medical reason to limit it, the main problem comes when the high-sugar foods leave you less room for filling, nutrient-dense foods. Generally, the caution applies to added sugars, not those that occur naturally in fruits and veggies. (Note: "generally" is not meant to be applied to people with diabetes or IR; from what I've read on these boards, it can vary person to person).

Find what you can stick to and be healthy and go with that.

lemurcat2

Some people may have a negative reaction to sat fat, and everyone should avoid transfats. I haven't noticed a negative reaction to sat fat at this stage of my life, but my dad had such a reaction and was able to get his cholesterol numbers back on track by cutting sat fat, and so I think it makes sense to limit that (at least for me), but I don't worry about it much -- it's more about not going overboard with meat or dairy fat, for me.

Otherwise, I think we should probably encourage sources of omega3 (especially from fatty fish, as the kinds most available from things like seeds or some eggs or fortification tend to be ALA, which is not as lacking in our diets as DHA/EPA. When I was eating plant-based for a while I took a DHA/EPA supplement. And if you tend to eat lots of foods that are high in omega 6, that can be a thing to watch (that's really if you eat lots of packaged stuff with various vegetable oils).

I'm not aware of fat percentage alone being an issue if you have a healthy diet and perhaps limit the sat fat, as noted above.

For me too much fat would only be a problem if the calories were crowding out other things I want in my diet.

amberellen12

quiksylver296 wrote: »

I get that CICO works. It’s what you are doing to your health when you are on some of these diets that I’m wondering about.

janejellyroll

amberellen12 wrote: »

quiksylver296 wrote: »

I get that CICO works. It’s what you are doing to your health when you are on some of these diets that I’m wondering about.

Are you asking about high fat diets in general or the ketogenic diet specifically?

There are some areas of the world where humans have traditionally eaten a high fat diet (not ketogenic) and seem to have thrived on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

There is a lot we're still learning about nutrition, but it doesn't seem like a high fat diet, in and of itself, is harmful to us.

amberellen12

Both...

amberellen12

I was looking up Forks over Knives and the research the doctors did on patients with coronary disease and the improvement they had when they cut fat (animal products) out of their diets. Also the increase in IGF1 with eating a high fat diet.

I don’t want to go vegetarian but would like to live my senior years in good health. So I am looking for a sound proven way of eating and foods to keep me in good health. I get veg, fruits, beans, whole grains are good. No processed foods. Cooking from scratch. But then there’s the grey area about dairy products and meat....animal products, oils, fats, sugar, refine grains.

Just so many conflicting opinions.

janejellyroll

amberellen12 wrote: »

I was looking up Forks over Knives and the research the doctors did on patients with coronary disease and the improvement they had when they cut fat (animal products) out of their diets. Also the increase in IGF1 with eating a high fat diet.

I don’t want to go vegetarian but would like to live my senior years in good health. So I am looking for a sound proven way of eating and foods to keep me in good health. I get veg, fruits, beans, whole grains are good. No processed foods. Cooking from scratch. But then there’s the grey area about dairy products and meat....animal products, oils, fats, sugar, refine grains.

Just so many conflicting opinions.

I think the best available evidence shows that there are a range of dietary styles that support good health, not just one way. And that diet can have a higher percentage of fat.

If you're interested in dietary styles associated with good health, I would recommend checking out the "blue zones." Rather than a specific diet plan, it explores eating styles in the areas where people tend to live the longest. There are some common threads in how they eat (along with other aspects of their lifestyles). None of the "blue zones" are meat-heavy, but only one has a high proportion of vegetarians (Loma Linda, CA). That suggests that we don't need to eliminate animal fat from our diets in order to have good health. Same with processed foods -- many of the "blue zones" ways of eating do include foods that have undergone some processing, so that suggests to me that we don't need to eliminate them to feel our best. Plant milks, canned beans and tomatoes, flours, miso, pasta, masa harina, tofu, dried fruit, cocoa powder, olive oil . . . these are all examples of processed foods that I feel confident eating frequently because they fit well in the context of a diet that is meeting my nutritional needs.

Here is a web site with more information (as well as some recipes that illustrate the underlying theories about food): https://www.bluezones.com/

nvmomketo

Fats tend to improve cholesterol for most people, the obvious exception being those with familial hypercholesterolemia.

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbs and sugars with fats, HDL tends to go up, triglycerides go down, LDL particle size improves, CAC scores stabilize or drop, and crp can drop. Generally, BG, A1C and insulin levels drop too.

Polyunsaturated vegetable oils (cotton seed, soy, corn, etc) appear to lower LDL in many but all cause mortality (often from cancer) appears to rise.

From what I have seen, there is some evidence that low fat high unprocessed carb diets can be healthy. The less healthy diet seems to be higher carb with higher fat in a diet with lots of processed and refined carbs, and plenty of polyunsaturated vegetable oils and trans fats.

Meats as a health problem is turning out to be just an old myth based on little science. There is some evidence that processed meats may raise your risk of colon cancer from 5% to 6%, but there is no evidence that unprocessed meats causes problems for an average person, or affects mortality.

IMO, the more highly processed foods tend to be correlated with poorer health. A diet with lots of veggies, nuts, seeds, eggs, meat, seafood, olives, some fruit, coconut, avocado and such appears to be healthier than one with lots of sugars, refined carbs, and highly processed oils or fats or meats.

For videos that are contrary to forks over knives, try the Perfect Human Diet, Fathead (after watching Supersize Me) and Magic Pill. Like fork over knives, they have their own agenda... Just not a vegan one.

janejellyroll

nvmomketo wrote: »

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbs and sugars with fats, HDL tends to go up, triglycerides go down, LDL particle size improves, CAC scores stabilize or drop, and crp can drop. Generally, BG, A1C and insulin levels drop too.

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbohydrates and sugars with other carbohydrate-rich foods, health metrics also tend to improve. People with health issues who make a change from one common Western-style pattern and adopt another way of eating (whether it's HFLC, LFHC, or just plain moderate carbohydrate with more nutrient rich foods) often see positive results. I'd say it's less about eating more fat in and of itself and more about getting closer to one of the multiple dietary patterns that humans seem to thrive on.

lemurcat2

amberellen12 wrote: »

I was looking up Forks over Knives and the research the doctors did on patients with coronary disease and the improvement they had when they cut fat (animal products) out of their diets. Also the increase in IGF1 with eating a high fat diet.

I don’t want to go vegetarian but would like to live my senior years in good health. So I am looking for a sound proven way of eating and foods to keep me in good health. I get veg, fruits, beans, whole grains are good. No processed foods. Cooking from scratch. But then there’s the grey area about dairy products and meat....animal products, oils, fats, sugar, refine grains.

Just so many conflicting opinions.

I strongly agree with what janejellyroll said above, and for the most part I think we overcomplicate health. The healthiest things one can do is not be overweight, get some exercise (blue zones are largely more moderate exercise more often, very active lifestyles, but having an active activity you enjoy is something I think is important), don't smoke, don't drink to excess, have connections with other people/community, try to reduce stress and don't be angry or bitter.

Beyond that, human diets are quite varied, but I think general basics for good health is calorie-appropriate, enjoyable, some variety (you don't want to be extremely low on protein or fat), vegetable-focused, some fruit and a variety of whole foods such as whole grains, potatoes or sweet potatoes, beans and lentils. Eat some fatty fish (if you like it and are not ethically opposed). Don't base every meal around animal products or use them more as sides rather than the main course. Don't fill up the diet with highly-refined carbs or fried foods or the like, but include those more sparingly. Stuff like that. But unless you are really interested or have a really terrible diet, most of this stuff is pretty minor.

As I recall, the anti fat stuff with the FoK folks is more sat fat or for people with existing coronary issues, but I do know they exaggerate the evidence and apply it to fat as a whole (based on the theory in part that a plant-based diet without added fat will be about 10% fat) and from what I've read the mainstream medical community has basically backtracked on the idea that fat alone (vs. sat fat, potentially) is an issue, especially if it's replaced with highly-refined grains or sugar (which no one recommends -- Walter Willett is someone to read on this). Beyond that, the real enemy for some of them is protein, and yet other studies suggest that as we age protein can be protective (quite possibly due to muscle loss).

I've come to believe that the mental stress of worrying about the diet wars or participating or getting invested (it's another thing that seems to be becoming tribal, political, and that's unpleasant) is probably more harmful than picking a slightly less optimal diet, and there will always be different opinions on what the best is. Common sense healthy diets are still healthy diets.

nvmomketo

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbs and sugars with fats, HDL tends to go up, triglycerides go down, LDL particle size improves, CAC scores stabilize or drop, and crp can drop. Generally, BG, A1C and insulin levels drop too.

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbohydrates and sugars with other carbohydrate-rich foods, health metrics also tend to improve. People with health issues who make a change from one common Western-style pattern and adopt another way of eating (whether it's HFLC, LFHC, or just plain moderate carbohydrate with more nutrient rich foods) often see positive results. I'd say it's less about eating more fat in and of itself and more about getting closer to one of the multiple dietary patterns that humans seem to thrive on.

I believe I basically said that in other paragraphs which you did not quote.

amberellen12

Such good info and where I’m leaning to. Cook my meals from scratch and cut out refine foods. Don’t over eat, move, be social.

Too many different diets/rules on what is right and isn’t.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my thread. I learn/ reaffirm what I was thinking.

janejellyroll

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbs and sugars with fats, HDL tends to go up, triglycerides go down, LDL particle size improves, CAC scores stabilize or drop, and crp can drop. Generally, BG, A1C and insulin levels drop too.

As a very general rule, when one replaces refined carbohydrates and sugars with other carbohydrate-rich foods, health metrics also tend to improve. People with health issues who make a change from one common Western-style pattern and adopt another way of eating (whether it's HFLC, LFHC, or just plain moderate carbohydrate with more nutrient rich foods) often see positive results. I'd say it's less about eating more fat in and of itself and more about getting closer to one of the multiple dietary patterns that humans seem to thrive on.

I believe I basically said that in other paragraphs which you did not quote.

I didn't believe you "basically" said that, which is why I responded. If that is what you meant, I accept that. What I thought you were saying was that a higher fat diet was producing the health benefits.

Salixiana

Sloth2016 wrote: »

There is no demonstrable connection between dietary sugar and cardiovascular disease.

Not true.

“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health."

Source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021

lemurcat2

I'm agnostic on whether ADDED sugar (and what you are talking about is only added sugar, not sugar from fruit, etc.) is independently a problem at certain levels or whether it's only a problem because it's linked to overweight or poor nutrient diets. I don't think this study really answers that question, although it suggests there should be more research.

From the blog post:

Added sugars make up at least 10% of the calories the average American eats in a day. But about one in 10 people get a whopping one-quarter or more of their calories from added sugar.

One-quarter or more from ADDED sugar is crazy high and almost impossible to do unless you (1) don't care about health recommendations or are exercising a huge amount and consuming a lot of energy drinks and gels and the like; and (2) have a huge number of calories.

People who ignore health recommendations on one thing are also likely to have less healthy lifestyles overall, to be more adverse to following rules (which can be related to bad outcomes -- there's a pill taking study that shows that people more likely to follow the rules and take the pills do better than those who do not, even when the pill is a placebo).

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, energy drinks, and sports drinks are by far the biggest sources of added sugar in the average American’s diet.

So basically the people doing worse are likely the small segment of the population who consumes an enormous amount of sugary soda, which again is something that is contrary to all health advise, and suggests that there may be other unhealthy lifestyle traits.

Nutritionists frown on added sugar for two reasons. One is its well-known links to weight gain and cavities. The other is that sugar delivers “empty calories” — calories unaccompanied by fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. Too much added sugar can crowd healthier foods from a person’s diet.

This is the most likely reason that excessive added sugar is a problem, IMO. (And unless you have a huge calorie goal, you don't really need to worry about how much is okay if calories and nutrition are satisfied.)

Could it be possible that sugar isn’t the true bad guy boosting heart disease risk, but that it’s the lack of heart-healthy foods like fruits and veggies? Apparently not. In this study, the researchers measured the participants’ Healthy Eating Index. This shows how well their diets match up to federal dietary guidelines. “Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Again, interesting, but I am skeptical. I checked the study itself, and this is based on recall by the participant, so it relies on accurate reporting from the participant. One thing we see, for example, is that overweight and calories tend to go together in studies until the higher levels, where the more obese claim to be eating fewer calories. Does it seem likely that they really are, when all observed/controlled studies show that they also respond to calories the way everyone else does (eating more causes weight gain, eating less causes weight loss)? Or is it likely that people who are obese are less likely to have a good sense of how much they are eating? I think that.

Similarly, people who consume a huge amount of added sugar simply cannot be eating the variety of nutrient dense foods that others, who consume much less, are eating. It seems much more likely to me that they know what they should be eating and either delude themselves or report inaccurately.

But there’s no similar upper limit for added sugar.

This is outdated, current recommendation is no more than 10% (and WHO says no more than 5% is better), but the reasons given for this is precisely overall calories and nutrients.

janejellyroll

Salixiana wrote: »

Sloth2016 wrote: »

There is no demonstrable connection between dietary sugar and cardiovascular disease.

Not true.

“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health."

Source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021

I'm struggling to understand how someone could get 25% of their daily calories from added sugar (the amount the blog post cites as being associated with increased risk) and still be meeting their nutritional needs overall. That's, like, a lot of sugar. For me, that would be 500 calories and I can't really think of a realistic meal plan where I could do that *and* get everything I needed.