Harvard: Time to end the Low Fat Myth

munky_do

They substitute the taste benefits of the fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup.... no wonder we've all gotten fatter

PikaKnight

They substitute the taste benefits of the fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup.... no wonder we've all gotten fatter

lol wut?
:huh:

SideSteel

I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.

i suppose but it seems to me that the same principals would applie. i.e. what really matters is how many calories.

While calories do matter, I might have to disagree with you on this one, just from my personal experience. About two years ago I worked at a local gym and one of the trainers is actually a pro bodybuilder. The guy is huge and his body fat is ridiculously low. So I asked him about calories and the best way for me to lose body fat, since obviously he knows what he is doing about nutrition, and that's when I first learned calories matter, and knowing that will help you maintain, gain or lose body weight (fat or muscle), but starch/sugar is the one thing that will make you gain body fat the fastest, because.... (it causes your blood glucose levels to go up too fast, insulin to be released into the bloodstream and store the glucose as adipose tissue, yada yada yada...). Since then, I have played around with levels of fat and the amount of starchy food, and it is true. Controlling starch is key to effectively lose body fat.

while it could perhaps influnce how fast you see results, you should still lose/gain appropriate to the calorie intake.

your on to something with the blood sugar spike though. if there is a reason to demonize starches or any high GI food then its the risk of developing diabetes. but even that risk would be well controlled if one does not eat to the point where they are unhealthfully over weight

Which is a major issue in this country. People can't control themselves, they are developing diabetes and too overweight. So yes, it does help with fast results, and it does help with diseases like diabetes. People are not educated about the importance of GI and the effects it has in the body.

Are you familiar with this piece?

http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index

mrbyte

I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.

I agree. Whenever something is fat free, carbs are added to it to balance the feel or taste of it.

Acg67

Here's an interesting economics paper suggesting that diet composition does matter. It certainly supports the low carb studies that time and time again show dieters spontaneously reducing their calories eating a low carb diet. I think it's foolish to ignore the role low fat diet recommendations may have impacted peoples satiety which in turn caused them to eat more overall.

"Recent clinical research has studied weight responses to varying diet composition, but the contribution of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to rising population weight remains controversial. Research on the economics of obesity typically assumes a “calories in, calories out” framework, but a weight production model separating caloric intake into carbohydrates, fat, and protein, has not been explored in an economic framework.

To estimate the contributions of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to changes in population weight, we conducted dynamic time series and structural VAR analyses of U.S. data between 1974 and 2006 and a panel analysis of 164 countries between 2001 and 2010. Findings from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and occupation-related physical activity.

Our structural VAR results suggest that, on the margin, a 1% increase in carbohydrates intake yields a 1.01 point increase in obesity prevalence over 5 years while an equal percent increase in fat intake decreases obesity prevalence by 0.24 points."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2279503

And actual controlled overfeeding trials show what?

And LOL

"Findings
from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated
with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and
occupation-related physical activity. If anything, increases in fat intake are associated with decreases in
population weight."

From the data set, from '74 - '06, carb intake increased 21.85% but fat increased 23.61%, hmmmmm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Availabily_Per_Capita_Data_System/Nutrient_Availability/nutrients.xls

bostonwolf

It's a shame they're still on the saturated fat is bad kick. What makes it even worse is they promote industrial seed oils (which contain trans fats) over nutritious whole foods just because they contain saturated fat -- it ruins the whole article and Harvard's credibility, IMO. Eggs, red meat, and full fat dairy are all healthful and delicious.

I agree, but they are moving in the right direction, at least. Processed carbs are literally killing us.

parkscs

Since this must have been missed before:

•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)

•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)

because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros

As others have already been pointing out, calories in/calories out is an oversimplification. This is especially true when discussing data like this where the intake is not controlled, for instance, people not counting everything via tools like MFP.

Yes, people had smaller portions back then and therefore less calories, but that doesn't mean that this is the cause of less obesity/diabetes and somehow not caused by something else.

When you eat less net carbs (which will result in lower blood sugar) and especially when you eat more fat (which lets you satisfy yourself as you fill up on calories), you tend to not eat as much. This is in a sociological/average sense. Yes, you could always eat more on a high fat, low carb diet or eat less on a low fat, high carb diet, but doing the opposite on each respective diet is easier because of what your hormones (typically) tell your body to do. So sociologically, we can expect the group to eat more calories on this low fat, high carb diet and therefore be fatter.

I think oversimplification is the wrong word. I think what you're trying to say is that monitoring CICO only works if you're accurately logging everything you eat and counting calories, and it's worth remembering that only a small minority of people do this. From a sociological perspective, it's worth considering how people could begin to create a caloric deficit through other means, e.g., preferring more satiating foods, a societal push for smaller portion sizes, etc. And from that perspective, the factors that could encourage a positive societal change (e.g., more whole foods and less "processed foods") are more or less irrelevant in a calorie counting situation (other than for satiety purposes). To put that another way, the types of factors that could make a difference on the societal level may not not make any difference whatsoever when applied to someone who is carefully tracking and monitoring their caloric intake on a daily basis.

bostonwolf

To the OP and those who want to weigh in:

There is the underlying truth when they point out the difference between good and bad fat. With that said, the reason more are obese today with less fat is the fact people or gorging themselves with excessive amount of calories. We live in a nation that is much better off than it was in the 60s. With success comes excess. So, we have an excessive about of fast foods, junk foods, etc. Yet when you look at poor, impurvished nations, they have many skinny people suffering from malnutrition.

So, there has to be a balance. Reduce the calories, monitor your bad fat and return to the roots of a healthy diet (basic food groups - now called macros). Or, you can pout your lips and live like you want. IDC - I eat my fat but I do so in moderation because I realize the journey I am on is mine to control.

Read the article. The reason they gorge is because they eat far more processed carbs than fat (which used to be 45% of the overall American diet) and those to not keep you satiated, so you go back for more a few hours later. It would also appear to cause a huge increase in diabetes.

Eating more fat keeps you full longer. Anecdotally speaking I find this to be true. I usually eat eggs, bacon/avocado for breakfast at about 7:30am. I am usually just starting to get hungry at about 12:30-1pm when I go to lunch. I then have a grilled chicken salad with olive oil dressing and am not hungry again until 5pm-6pm.

The easiest way to reduce your caloric intake in my experience to eat very few to no processed carbs, grains, or starches.

No_Finish_Line

I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.

i suppose but it seems to me that the same principals would applie. i.e. what really matters is how many calories.

While calories do matter, I might have to disagree with you on this one, just from my personal experience. About two years ago I worked at a local gym and one of the trainers is actually a pro bodybuilder. The guy is huge and his body fat is ridiculously low. So I asked him about calories and the best way for me to lose body fat, since obviously he knows what he is doing about nutrition, and that's when I first learned calories matter, and knowing that will help you maintain, gain or lose body weight (fat or muscle), but starch/sugar is the one thing that will make you gain body fat the fastest, because.... (it causes your blood glucose levels to go up too fast, insulin to be released into the bloodstream and store the glucose as adipose tissue, yada yada yada...). Since then, I have played around with levels of fat and the amount of starchy food, and it is true. Controlling starch is key to effectively lose body fat.

while it could perhaps influnce how fast you see results, you should still lose/gain appropriate to the calorie intake.

your on to something with the blood sugar spike though. if there is a reason to demonize starches or any high GI food then its the risk of developing diabetes. but even that risk would be well controlled if one does not eat to the point where they are unhealthfully over weight

Which is a major issue in this country. People can't control themselves, they are developing diabetes and too overweight. So yes, it does help with fast results, and it does help with diseases like diabetes. People are not educated about the importance of GI and the effects it has in the body.

Are you familiar with this piece?

http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index

from the article

GI gives us clues to the behavior of certain foods, but that's exactly the main point of this article. Clues; mere hints are all we get from our current knowledge of GI. Successful application of GI is most consistent when we use higher GI sources to enhance the speed of postworkout glycogenesis, and that's about it. Carb foods are better judged on the basis of degree processing, refinement, or alteration/removal of micronutrition -- NOT on the basis of GI, or even GL. This is as good a time as any to crush the folly of what I call "food discrimination". A prime example of this is cutting out potatoes on the basis of GI.

at first i wasn't really agreeing, i mean if something is processed then its going to have a higher GI.

then i read the part about the potato lol and it clicked.

thats pretty much how america reacted to the 'high carb' info

No_Finish_Line

They substitute the taste benefits of the fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup.... no wonder we've all gotten fatter

lol wut?
:huh:

high fructose corn syrup is much worse then a potato lol

AlabasterVerve

Here's an interesting economics paper suggesting that diet composition does matter. It certainly supports the low carb studies that time and time again show dieters spontaneously reducing their calories eating a low carb diet. I think it's foolish to ignore the role low fat diet recommendations may have impacted peoples satiety which in turn caused them to eat more overall.

"Recent clinical research has studied weight responses to varying diet composition, but the contribution of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to rising population weight remains controversial. Research on the economics of obesity typically assumes a “calories in, calories out” framework, but a weight production model separating caloric intake into carbohydrates, fat, and protein, has not been explored in an economic framework.

To estimate the contributions of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to changes in population weight, we conducted dynamic time series and structural VAR analyses of U.S. data between 1974 and 2006 and a panel analysis of 164 countries between 2001 and 2010. Findings from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and occupation-related physical activity.

Our structural VAR results suggest that, on the margin, a 1% increase in carbohydrates intake yields a 1.01 point increase in obesity prevalence over 5 years while an equal percent increase in fat intake decreases obesity prevalence by 0.24 points."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2279503

And actual controlled overfeeding trials show what?

And LOL

"Findings
from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated
with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and
occupation-related physical activity. If anything, increases in fat intake are associated with decreases in
population weight."

From the data set, from '74 - '06, carb intake increased 21.85% but fat increased 23.61%, hmmmmm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Availabily_Per_Capita_Data_System/Nutrient_Availability/nutrients.xls

From their paper:

"Several important changes in the patterns of energy intake and expenditure have developed in the United States during the past 40 to 50 years. Between 1971 and 2000, total caloric intake increased while the proportion of caloric intake from carbohydrates increased and the proportion from dietary fat decreased (Wright et al., 2004)."

Wright J, Kennedy-Stephenson J, Wang C, McDowell M, Johnson C. Trends in Intake of Energy and
Macronutrients --- United States, 1971--2000. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004; 53; 80–82.

And looking that up it looks like they relied on the analysis done by the CDC of the NHANES surveys:

"This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicate that, during 1971--2000, mean energy intake in kcals increased, mean percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased, and mean percentage of kcals from total fat and saturated fat decreased (Figures 1 and 2)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

What data they used for the other 164 countries they looked at in the "panel analysis" (whatever that is) I didn't see. Their conclusion seems plausible to me since it mirrors my own experience -- and the recommendations on this site -- but I don't have the first clue whether the data they analysed and the methodology used has merit or if it's too flawed to be taken seriously.

Either or I thought the economics angle was interesting given that the increasing health care costs seem to have everyone concerned and weighing in on the issue these days.

Acg67

Here's an interesting economics paper suggesting that diet composition does matter. It certainly supports the low carb studies that time and time again show dieters spontaneously reducing their calories eating a low carb diet. I think it's foolish to ignore the role low fat diet recommendations may have impacted peoples satiety which in turn caused them to eat more overall.

"Recent clinical research has studied weight responses to varying diet composition, but the contribution of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to rising population weight remains controversial. Research on the economics of obesity typically assumes a “calories in, calories out” framework, but a weight production model separating caloric intake into carbohydrates, fat, and protein, has not been explored in an economic framework.

To estimate the contributions of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to changes in population weight, we conducted dynamic time series and structural VAR analyses of U.S. data between 1974 and 2006 and a panel analysis of 164 countries between 2001 and 2010. Findings from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and occupation-related physical activity.

Our structural VAR results suggest that, on the margin, a 1% increase in carbohydrates intake yields a 1.01 point increase in obesity prevalence over 5 years while an equal percent increase in fat intake decreases obesity prevalence by 0.24 points."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2279503

And actual controlled overfeeding trials show what?

And LOL

"Findings
from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated
with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and
occupation-related physical activity. If anything, increases in fat intake are associated with decreases in
population weight."

From the data set, from '74 - '06, carb intake increased 21.85% but fat increased 23.61%, hmmmmm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Availabily_Per_Capita_Data_System/Nutrient_Availability/nutrients.xls

From their paper:

"Several important changes in the patterns of energy intake and expenditure have developed in the United States during the past 40 to 50 years. Between 1971 and 2000, total caloric intake increased while the proportion of caloric intake from carbohydrates increased and the proportion from dietary fat decreased (Wright et al., 2004)."

Wright J, Kennedy-Stephenson J, Wang C, McDowell M, Johnson C. Trends in Intake of Energy and
Macronutrients --- United States, 1971--2000. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004; 53; 80–82.

And looking that up it looks like they relied on the analysis done by the CDC of the NHANES surveys:

"This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicate that, during 1971--2000, mean energy intake in kcals increased, mean percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased, and mean percentage of kcals from total fat and saturated fat decreased (Figures 1 and 2)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

What data they used for the other 164 countries they looked at in the "panel analysis" (whatever that is) I didn't see. Their conclusion seems plausible to me since it mirrors my own experience -- and the recommendations on this site -- but I don't have the first clue whether the data they analysed and the methodology used has merit or if it's too flawed to be taken seriously.

Either or I thought the economics angle was interesting given that the increasing health care costs seem to have everyone concerned and weighing in on the issue these days.

Read the section labeled Data. I provided a link to that dataset. Interestingly enough fat intake exploded from 99 to 2000 I believe, don't have the data in front of me and Hmmm didn't obesity really take off from there?

Either way there have been well controlled overfeeding trials that destroy the notion of carbs being uniquely obesgenic, also the Hellerstein work on DNL.

DavPul

I wonder if the prevalent perpetual smoking of cigarettes was a factor to lower percentages in the 60's.
Using data from so long ago is irrelevant.
Doesn't necessarily affect the rest of the research, I'm just saying don't use data from 54 years ago as a way to measure the differences. Job prosperity was also significantly different (more money to buy more food, different hours of work, more women in the workplace and not at home cooking wholesome meals), along with technology, etc.

Edit: Grammar and clarifications.

Reported for being of topic.

We're only here to demonize carbs so please stick to the program and pretend that no other factors besides carb intake have changed in societal behavior over the last 50 years.

EvgeniZyntx

Here's an interesting economics paper suggesting that diet composition does matter. It certainly supports the low carb studies that time and time again show dieters spontaneously reducing their calories eating a low carb diet. I think it's foolish to ignore the role low fat diet recommendations may have impacted peoples satiety which in turn caused them to eat more overall.

"Recent clinical research has studied weight responses to varying diet composition, but the contribution of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to rising population weight remains controversial. Research on the economics of obesity typically assumes a “calories in, calories out” framework, but a weight production model separating caloric intake into carbohydrates, fat, and protein, has not been explored in an economic framework.

To estimate the contributions of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to changes in population weight, we conducted dynamic time series and structural VAR analyses of U.S. data between 1974 and 2006 and a panel analysis of 164 countries between 2001 and 2010. Findings from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and occupation-related physical activity.

Our structural VAR results suggest that, on the margin, a 1% increase in carbohydrates intake yields a 1.01 point increase in obesity prevalence over 5 years while an equal percent increase in fat intake decreases obesity prevalence by 0.24 points."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2279503

And actual controlled overfeeding trials show what?

And LOL

"Findings
from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated
with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and
occupation-related physical activity. If anything, increases in fat intake are associated with decreases in
population weight."

From the data set, from '74 - '06, carb intake increased 21.85% but fat increased 23.61%, hmmmmm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Availabily_Per_Capita_Data_System/Nutrient_Availability/nutrients.xls

From their paper:

"Several important changes in the patterns of energy intake and expenditure have developed in the United States during the past 40 to 50 years. Between 1971 and 2000, total caloric intake increased while the proportion of caloric intake from carbohydrates increased and the proportion from dietary fat decreased (Wright et al., 2004)."

Wright J, Kennedy-Stephenson J, Wang C, McDowell M, Johnson C. Trends in Intake of Energy and
Macronutrients --- United States, 1971--2000. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004; 53; 80–82.

And looking that up it looks like they relied on the analysis done by the CDC of the NHANES surveys:

"This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicate that, during 1971--2000, mean energy intake in kcals increased, mean percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased, and mean percentage of kcals from total fat and saturated fat decreased (Figures 1 and 2)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

What data they used for the other 164 countries they looked at in the "panel analysis" (whatever that is) I didn't see. Their conclusion seems plausible to me since it mirrors my own experience -- and the recommendations on this site -- but I don't have the first clue whether the data they analysed and the methodology used has merit or if it's too flawed to be taken seriously.

Either or I thought the economics angle was interesting given that the increasing health care costs seem to have everyone concerned and weighing in on the issue these days.

Read the section labeled Data. I provided a link to that dataset. Interestingly enough fat intake exploded from 99 to 2000 I believe, don't have the data in front of me and Hmmm didn't obesity really take off from there?

Either way there have been well controlled overfeeding trials that destroy the notion of carbs being uniquely obesgenic, also the Hellerstein work on DNL.

If carbs increased faster than fats then the proportion of fats decreases. Both can increase yet proportion [of the total calories consumed] are relational.

Math.

tennisdude2004

TL;DR:

Avoid trans fats
Limit Saturated fats
Keep calories at appropriate level
???
Profit

Slight amend

Avoid man-made Trans fat and interesterified fats.
Limit - Polyunsaturated fats
Focus on eating saturated fats (especially if eating a diet low in carbs).

The_WoIverine

I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.

i suppose but it seems to me that the same principals would applie. i.e. what really matters is how many calories.

While calories do matter, I might have to disagree with you on this one, just from my personal experience. About two years ago I worked at a local gym and one of the trainers is actually a pro bodybuilder. The guy is huge and his body fat is ridiculously low. So I asked him about calories and the best way for me to lose body fat, since obviously he knows what he is doing about nutrition, and that's when I first learned calories matter, and knowing that will help you maintain, gain or lose body weight (fat or muscle), but starch/sugar is the one thing that will make you gain body fat the fastest, because.... (it causes your blood glucose levels to go up too fast, insulin to be released into the bloodstream and store the glucose as adipose tissue, yada yada yada...). Since then, I have played around with levels of fat and the amount of starchy food, and it is true. Controlling starch is key to effectively lose body fat.

while it could perhaps influnce how fast you see results, you should still lose/gain appropriate to the calorie intake.

your on to something with the blood sugar spike though. if there is a reason to demonize starches or any high GI food then its the risk of developing diabetes. but even that risk would be well controlled if one does not eat to the point where they are unhealthfully over weight

Which is a major issue in this country. People can't control themselves, they are developing diabetes and too overweight. So yes, it does help with fast results, and it does help with diseases like diabetes. People are not educated about the importance of GI and the effects it has in the body.

Are you familiar with this piece?

http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index

from the article

GI gives us clues to the behavior of certain foods, but that's exactly the main point of this article. Clues; mere hints are all we get from our current knowledge of GI. Successful application of GI is most consistent when we use higher GI sources to enhance the speed of postworkout glycogenesis, and that's about it. Carb foods are better judged on the basis of degree processing, refinement, or alteration/removal of micronutrition -- NOT on the basis of GI, or even GL. This is as good a time as any to crush the folly of what I call "food discrimination". A prime example of this is cutting out potatoes on the basis of GI.

at first i wasn't really agreeing, i mean if something is processed then its going to have a higher GI.

then i read the part about the potato lol and it clicked.

thats pretty much how america reacted to the 'high carb' info

While I'm not disagreeing with that article, GI has been studied for a while already, not because of bodybuilding, but because of diabetics. Again, I'm not saying the article is right or wrong, but tell a diabetic person to not worry about foods with a high GI and see what happens.

Up to this point, many bodybuilders (pros and nonpros) and those who are just trying to lose weight have successfully lowered body fat while being conscious about the GI of what they're eating. For instance, I personally like to include high GI foods in my breakfast, pre and post workout, while during my other meals I try to eat low GI foods. Has this worked out for me? So far it seems like it has. I don't run away from carbs, I'm just cautions about when and how much simple and complex carbs I eat.

Unknown

This content has been removed.