"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???
Options
Replies
-
Another argument was made that we don't need to eat grain, which implies that we shouldn't. Well, there are a lot of things we don't need to eat. I don't eat meat and I'm not dead yet! It doesn't mean that other people can't include meat as part of a healthful diet. Cultural/ethnic diets vary so greatly from one to another and yet people manage to nourish themselves.
But I think what baffles me the most about about this thread and the paleo diet in general, is how accepting people are of information that really should be given critical thought. People cite blogs, their naturopaths, books, other people. In reality, paleo dieting is a hypothesis; there is very limited longitudinal evidence of the touted health benefits of this diet in medical literature (controlled, randomized studies.) Advocates for this diet often couch their arguments in metabolic/endrocrinology theory, and anthropology, and their own anecdotes, but there aren't very many citations in pubmed about application (large groups of peopel on the diet). I read a couple of studies and there didn't even seem to a consensus about what the diet actually was.
You probably can do fine on a paleo diet if that's your thing, but that isn't to say you can't do fine on a vegan diet or South Beach, or pretty much anything else. Some people actually do well on low fat diets. Go with what works for you! But healthy skepticism never hurts.
I'm a bit confused here. On this thread, I see paleo people mostly standing up for not eating grains, since there have been numerous criticisms about the diet. No one is insisting that we all stop eating grains and glutens - most have been very quick to point out that this is a way of eating ("diet") that works for *them,* just as not eating meat works for *you*. Why is that so difficult to understand?
If you would take the time to read and research the HEAVILY referenced Good Calories, Bad Calories (seriously - more studies than you can shake a stick at), then I think you might change your opinion on "anecdotal evidence." I have done the research - I've read the books and looked at pubmed at the studies (I have a masters in Mo.Bio, so I'm not exactly a slouch at the biochemistry part of this equation). There aren't enough studies for my taste, so I've researched on myself - since really, that's the information that's most important to me anyway.
I was a vegetarian for 7+ years (up to and during 2 pregnancies) and a vegan for almost a year. I was constantly tired and had cravings like you wouldn't believe. Since I started eating Paleo / Primal I've lost weight, I'm rarely sick, my allergies have all but vanished, and my skin is clearer. My cholesterol is in the low-normal range, triglycerides are 47. Blood pressure has gone down from borderline high to normal. It works for me. Vegetarianism didn't, but it obviously agrees with you (I assume).0 -
Another argument was made that we don't need to eat grain, which implies that we shouldn't. Well, there are a lot of things we don't need to eat. I don't eat meat and I'm not dead yet! It doesn't mean that other people can't include meat as part of a healthful diet. Cultural/ethnic diets vary so greatly from one to another and yet people manage to nourish themselves.
But I think what baffles me the most about about this thread and the paleo diet in general, is how accepting people are of information that really should be given critical thought. People cite blogs, their naturopaths, books, other people. In reality, paleo dieting is a hypothesis; there is very limited longitudinal evidence of the touted health benefits of this diet in medical literature (controlled, randomized studies.) Advocates for this diet often couch their arguments in metabolic/endrocrinology theory, and anthropology, and their own anecdotes, but there aren't very many citations in pubmed about application (large groups of peopel on the diet). I read a couple of studies and there didn't even seem to a consensus about what the diet actually was.
You probably can do fine on a paleo diet if that's your thing, but that isn't to say you can't do fine on a vegan diet or South Beach, or pretty much anything else. Some people actually do well on low fat diets. Go with what works for you! But healthy skepticism never hurts.
I'm a bit confused here. On this thread, I see paleo people mostly standing up for not eating grains, since there have been numerous criticisms about the diet. No one is insisting that we all stop eating grains and glutens - most have been very quick to point out that this is a way of eating ("diet") that works for *them,* just as not eating meat works for *you*. Why is that so difficult to understand?
If you would take the time to read and research the HEAVILY referenced Good Calories, Bad Calories (seriously - more studies than you can shake a stick at), then I think you might change your opinion on "anecdotal evidence." I have done the research - I've read the books and looked at pubmed at the studies (I have a masters in Mo.Bio, so I'm not exactly a slouch at the biochemistry part of this equation). There aren't enough studies for my taste, so I've researched on myself - since really, that's the information that's most important to me anyway.
I was a vegetarian for 7+ years (up to and during 2 pregnancies) and a vegan for almost a year. I was constantly tired and had cravings like you wouldn't believe. Since I started eating Paleo / Primal I've lost weight, I'm rarely sick, my allergies have all but vanished, and my skin is clearer. My cholesterol is in the low-normal range, triglycerides are 47. Blood pressure has gone down from borderline high to normal. It works for me. Vegetarianism didn't, but it obviously agrees with you (I assume).
Hi there.
I have stopped arguing for what I believe in because when it comes to either the low fat, low calorie way of eating or vegetarianism and veganism there is all this scientific evidence................when those of us that follow any type of lower carb eating plan everyone keeps saying "Oh, there is no scientific backing" - even when people are citing the sources and references. Everything concerning the low carb community and especially the Paleo community is "ancedotal evidence" at best.
I will just continue to eat this way and when people ask me genuinely, I will assist them with the information they are wanting and needing.
I have been fighting this fight from the time I started Atkins in 2003 and I am exhausted fighting and explaining what I believe for people to come back and say it is all a fraud............when I know for certain it is not.0 -
Another argument was made that we don't need to eat grain, which implies that we shouldn't. Well, there are a lot of things we don't need to eat. I don't eat meat and I'm not dead yet! It doesn't mean that other people can't include meat as part of a healthful diet. Cultural/ethnic diets vary so greatly from one to another and yet people manage to nourish themselves.
But I think what baffles me the most about about this thread and the paleo diet in general, is how accepting people are of information that really should be given critical thought. People cite blogs, their naturopaths, books, other people. In reality, paleo dieting is a hypothesis; there is very limited longitudinal evidence of the touted health benefits of this diet in medical literature (controlled, randomized studies.) Advocates for this diet often couch their arguments in metabolic/endrocrinology theory, and anthropology, and their own anecdotes, but there aren't very many citations in pubmed about application (large groups of peopel on the diet). I read a couple of studies and there didn't even seem to a consensus about what the diet actually was.
You probably can do fine on a paleo diet if that's your thing, but that isn't to say you can't do fine on a vegan diet or South Beach, or pretty much anything else. Some people actually do well on low fat diets. Go with what works for you! But healthy skepticism never hurts.
I'm a bit confused here. On this thread, I see paleo people mostly standing up for not eating grains, since there have been numerous criticisms about the diet. No one is insisting that we all stop eating grains and glutens - most have been very quick to point out that this is a way of eating ("diet") that works for *them,* just as not eating meat works for *you*. Why is that so difficult to understand?
If you would take the time to read and research the HEAVILY referenced Good Calories, Bad Calories (seriously - more studies than you can shake a stick at), then I think you might change your opinion on "anecdotal evidence." I have done the research - I've read the books and looked at pubmed at the studies (I have a masters in Mo.Bio, so I'm not exactly a slouch at the biochemistry part of this equation). There aren't enough studies for my taste, so I've researched on myself - since really, that's the information that's most important to me anyway.
I was a vegetarian for 7+ years (up to and during 2 pregnancies) and a vegan for almost a year. I was constantly tired and had cravings like you wouldn't believe. Since I started eating Paleo / Primal I've lost weight, I'm rarely sick, my allergies have all but vanished, and my skin is clearer. My cholesterol is in the low-normal range, triglycerides are 47. Blood pressure has gone down from borderline high to normal. It works for me. Vegetarianism didn't, but it obviously agrees with you (I assume).
I've had a hard time finding those studies. Can you point them out to me?0 -
Do you eat things like cheese? That's not found in nature, but is it really "processed" ? What about yogurt? I eat flax everyday, but it's in my oatmeal, which would be a no-go according to Paleo. What bread substitutes have you found?? I NEED to know! I've switched to carrot pasta a while ago, but can't seem to find a substitute for bread/oatmeal. Thank you!
Has anyone suggested quinoa? I haven't tried it myself, but it was recently suggested to me as a cereal substitute.....0 -
You are right. I do eat cheese. I try to eat really aged cheeses or really fresh cheeses! I lived for five years in a country where the people group (Kazakhs) were nomads who ate mostly fermented milk products, meats and animal fats. I learned to love eating good quality cheeses and yogurts. Yummmmm. Other then the dairy which I have not found to stall my weight loss I am a clean eater. I have found many ways to use cheese and eggs to make bread substitutes. My favorite recipe right now is "Deep Dish Quiche Pizza". It tastes like a pan pizza! Yummmmo. I also have made the Oopsie rolls. I substitute french cut green beans for pasta most times but have used spagetti squash, zucchini ribbons and other veggies to get the sauces I love in to my body! (which is the only reason I need a pasta substitute.)
Oh, yeah - love me some spaghetti squash!
Interesting discussion..... just had to comment on the squash, it's one of my favs!0 -
And see, the doctors told me that I need to limit my carb intake. That I was borderline diabetic and by 20 I would be a diabetic. I haven't changed a thing and I am not diabetic. I didn't roll over and accept it. I didn't let it get to the point where it did effect my life. I did my preventive maintainance and came out fine. My blood sugar levels are well under control.
The "American" Diet and exercise have not failed me. I doubt it ever will. There is nothing out there that proves it's bad.
But you DID do something - what did your preventive maintenance consist of? By remaining active and eating a healthy diet? And that worked for you - but your way won't necessarily work for everyone. To each his own.....0 -
I'm a bit confused here. On this thread, I see paleo people mostly standing up for not eating grains, since there have been numerous criticisms about the diet. No one is insisting that we all stop eating grains and glutens - most have been very quick to point out that this is a way of eating ("diet") that works for *them,* just as not eating meat works for *you*. Why is that so difficult to understand?
What's confusing you? And my last paragraph I pointed out that people should do what works best for them. I even said earlier that meat eating diets can be perfectly healthful. Isn't that your point? We're not at odds here.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The paleo diet is fine, the food choices are healthy. Because of some of the marketing hyperbole, people are walking away with the message that grains (and legumes, apparently) are unhealthful because earlier hunter gatherers didn't eat them. On that basis I have read people recommending that others cut grains from their diet. That's my problem. It's nonsensical, unsupported advice. Cut grains/legumes to restrict calories (all diets essentially function on calorie restriction) but don't be say that they're bad for you.
The best diet for you is the one you can adhere to. Some people do very well on high protein/vegetable diets, including yourself. More power to youIf you would take the time to read and research the HEAVILY referenced Good Calories, Bad Calories (seriously - more studies than you can shake a stick at), then I think you might change your opinion on "anecdotal evidence."
What? No, that makes absolutely no sense. A study by definition is not "anecdotal". Anecdotes are n=1. You simply can not come to a scientific conclusion on the basis of one person's experience.
Good Calories, Bad Calories, according to the synopsis, excoriates refined grains such as white bread, white sugar, white rice. But, all grains are not refined. A balanced diet that includes whole grains is not unhealthy.0 -
70% fat, 25% protein and 5% carbs
Ok, to bring this back to the original topic, what evidence is there to support this high fat diet? And sorry, lomg post here.
First off, if you believe in the paleo/primal diet and think that there is a Government/USDA/Monsanto conspiracy that wants us to be unhealthy, uninformed, etc., please stop reading. I don't want to offend you and we have no common base to have a discussion about diet, if you reject science based rational evidence. If it works for you go for it, but let's keep this a thread based on facts, scientific facts.
Secondly reading through some of these posts it strikes me there is a basic misunderstanding about what science can do and not do. First off science does not prove anything. Science is built around the concept that you propose a hypothesis, based on a framework of your understanding of a topic. Then you try to design an experiment to test this hypothesis and the results of the experiment either support or reject the hypothesis. Rejection is final, your framework of how you look at this issue is wrong and you need to change it. Support is not final, in your experiment and conditions your hypothesis is not rejected, but in other conditions or experiments it can be rejected, which means your framework at looking at this issue can still be wrong. This is a basic way science works and is, for instance, where the endless discussion that evolution is just a hypothesis comes from. Thus, this scientific way of making progress might be frustrating to many people, science does not provide final answers, science often changes its way of looking at issues as more evidence is available, and that's why bleeding is not the main medical treatment out there anymore. That’s why scientific recommendations change over time, like for the USDA food pyramid, food recommendations, etc. The beauty of this approach is that you get better at understanding your system/diet as you go along; you adjust to new data, and can improve your understanding of how things work. That's why there is no alternative to the scientific approach, that's the only way we can make progress. Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years. And for most of us, we live a better life than any of our ancestors, all because of science. In the last 200 years we have made more progress understanding the natural world than ever before, we have airplanes, cars, internet, cell phones, man on the moon, etc, all because we used a scientific approach to examine the natural word. If you reject this scientific approach, well go back to the Stone Age, and read the top couple of lines, we can't have a rational discussion if you reject science, so please stop reading this.
Thirdly, there are two lines of evidence that scientists use, correlational and experimental. Correlational is based on comparing natural patterns, like comparing health info and diet across countries. Obviously many other factors vary too across countries in addition to the factor that you are interested in and want to examine. But, many experiments, especially with humans, are not ethical, so this is often the only approach that you can use to examine patterns in nature and human health. Then the key is to have large sample sizes over long time periods, the more data you use, the better and solid the patterns are likely to be. This is obviously difficult and expensive, which limits the number of good studies. But the gold standard is experiments. In this you manipulate, ideally, just one factor, and examine what happens. Most human diet data that we have is observational, for good reasons, you can't ethically put humans on unhealthy diets. That's a problem, because this observational data might be biased, for instance, people who smoke tend to eat more junk food and be more sedentary, it is hard to separate these three, unless you have large sample sizes, which is rarely the case. Thus most experimental studies are animal studies or short-term human studies.
Fourth, any guru, or diet specialist, who gives you absolute answers about what the key diet or diet ingredient, is a quack. Lots of quacks out there, it is a lot easier to make a living making money of a cult/diet than any honest way. Read point three again, for better or worse, science does not have any absolute answers, anyone who provides you with absolute answers, well what can I say? I would avoid drinking the cool aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
So, fifth, what do we know based on data? Note this is my interpretation, there is a vast literature on any scientific topic including diets, and I only looked at some well cited and review articles. And I avoided the cult books / web sites, anyone can make anything up and post in on the internet these days.
1. There is overwhelming evidence that being overweight is not good for you. This is based on correlational data of humans and experimental data from fruit flies to mice and rats. Put animals or humans on a restricted diet and you live a lot longer and have less disease. This is the most important thing you can do for your health. And reading this thread, yes most Western people eat too many calories, be it carbohydrates or fat, and do not exercise enough, calories in versus calories eat. Eat more than you use and you will get fat, which is a big problem. Based on animal models and human data, being too fat seems to interfere with healthy insulin sensitivity and leads to many metabolic problems. Currently, in the US something like 20% of all people is obese and another 30% overweight. Predictions are that by 2020 50% of the US population will be diabetic; we have a major health crisis developing. Thus, my interpretation, bring your BMI down to the healthy range, and preferably to the low end of the healthy range. And as a country, we need to stop subsidizing and promoting calories and change our food system to less calories and a more healthy diet, but that's a separate political issue. Everyone has a free choice, you can change your diet and not be part of this problem and there is no point blaming the USDA/Monsanto/Government for what your health and weight is.
2. Secondly, exercising is good for your health too, based on both correlational and experimental data. Increasing your activity is good for you and, in addition, helps you also to lose weight.
3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
4. Fourth, there is lots of evidence that saturated animal fats are not good for you, both observational and in experimental animal studies. Thus, I think based on this, 70% fat, especially animal fat, is not a healthy diet. And, vegetarian is good, or keep meat low, and preferentially eat fish, and poultry. Also note most wild animals are low in fat and very lean, including range fed beef and bison.
5. There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health. Again, mainly correlational, but eating more fish seems best, based on the evidence currently available.
6. Similarly for nuts, eating more unsaturated fats is correlated with good health.
7. There is not a lot of evidence either way for saturated plant fats like coconut oil. There is nothing magically good about them in the scientific literature, but there are not a lot of good studies based on longer term data, showing it is bad for you either. So, for the time being, I would eat them in moderation, and keep your intake low, based on the evidence that we have that unsaturated oils are correlated with better health and saturated fats are not.
8. Fiber, there is increasingly, both observational and experimental evidence, that increased fiber, both soluble and insoluble is good for your colon and health. Thus eat whole grains whenever you can and increase your fiber intake to 30-40 grams per day. I think the USAD recommendation is too low.
9. Cholesterol, specifically LDL, high levels are correlated with high cardiovascular disease. Note again this is correlational. There is also strong experimental evidence that taking statins, when you have high LDL, lowers your LDL level and lowers your risk for cardiovascular disease. But the link between LDL and hearth disease is correlation, statins also lower inflammation, so there is no absolute proof. But, as Bill Clinton, found out, if your LDL is high, using statins and staying on them, is a good idea. I have seen statements that eating lots of fatty animal foods, high in cholesterol is good for your health. There is no evidence supporting this and lots of evidence contradicting this, and these posts are irresponsible at best. Again, whatever you read on any web site, remember to not drink the kool aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Read up on in reputable sources before you do anything or follow any advice.
So, to answer the question about the 70% fat diet. I would not do this nor advise this, especially if you get the majority of the fat from animals or sources like butter and coconut oil. There is much more evidence that unsaturated fats and a Mediterranean diet are better for your health. Secondly skip simple sugars and refined carbohydrates and stick to whole grains. But even more important bring your BMI down to a healthy range; this will help you the most. And exercise, this is good and will also help you bring your weight down
As always, that's my current view above, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. But show me credible studies and I will change my mind. But, please do not refer to blogs or books by quacks.0 -
What? No, that makes absolutely no sense. A study by definition is not "anecdotal". Anecdotes are n=1. You simply can not come to a scientific conclusion on the basis of one person's experience.
Good Calories, Bad Calories, according to the synopsis, excoriates refined grains such as white bread, white sugar, white rice. But, all grains are not refined. A balanced diet that includes whole grains is not unhealthy.
I believe they meant:
I think you might change your opinion WHICH IS BASED on "anecdotal evidence." Hence the 'approval of lots of studies which you can't shake sticks at.'0 -
Well I apologize that I don't have time to go through 8 pages of lengthy posts to make sure I'm not repeating myself even the slightest bit. If i am, then people can just ignore it
And speaking of interpreting things wrong, my first comment simply implied that a paleo diet is not about monitoring how much percentage of fat you're eating - whether it be 70% of 30%.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/search-results/?cx=004987908667488763946:kd-fp2c7jek&cof=FORID:11&ie=UTF-8&q=definitive+guides&sa.x=63&sa.y=9&sa=Search#919
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=12909
-neither HTML or BB coding seemed to yield proper links, so if anyone cares, they can copy and paste the readings!
If you were referring to my post, my apologies because you were interpreting it wrong. I was agreeing with you.
Misinterpretation for everyone! My apologies :P0 -
I must point out that correlation does NOT equal causation. Speaking of basing things on scientific facts..
I thought I'd provide a little reading supporting the concept that high fat diets (unprocessed mind you) are not bad and there is no logical evidence indefinitely linking intake of fat to heart disease, etc.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734
"Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity."
---
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD"
---
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10535381
"The low serum insulin that decreases with age in Kitavans adds to the evidence that a Western lifestyle is a primary cause of insulin resistance. Low serum insulin may partly explain the low prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Kitavans and probably relates to their marked leanness." (note that one of the main Kitavan staples is coconut - a food dominantly consisting of saturated fat. They do not eat grains, dairy and consume a low amount of sodium)
---
If grains were essential to our health, we would have died out long ago considering our ancestors (I'm talking cavemen) ate dominantly meat followed by veggies, fruits and nuts. I don't think foods like corn or unprocessed oats are inherently bad for you - just not necessarily optimal, though they certainly have some benefits. Things like bread and pasta, however, are simply not the best things to put into your body.
Ultimately, our bodies need to be eating fresh, nutrient dense, whole natural foods - not processed crap full of weird ingredients and unnecessary additives (and very few grains are ever consumed unprocessed). To me, this seems like common sense, though a few years ago I was as skeptical as the next gal.
I don't think there's a big government conspiracy hell bent on keeping us unhealthy and uninformed - I just think there's a lot of misinformation floating around due to genuine ignorance.0 -
I've had a hard time finding those studies. Can you point them out to me?
Really? Guess you didn't bother looking, since the blogs that have already been linked contain plenty of links to peer-reviewed research. Here - let me post a few for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423158 (Gluten association with celiac and schizophrenia)
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39 (paleo diet - lower blood pressure, c-reactive protein, and higher insulin sensitivity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12409286?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor (type 1 diabetes may be induced by gluten)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18589004?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor (Celiac - from gluten to autoimmunity)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10489816?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor (Cereal grains - double-edged sword)
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN83_03/S0007114500000271a.pdf&code=8b1219871b94ca9dcc1b3917051f9ad5 (Lectins in RA)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract (metabolic and physiologic improvements from paleo diet)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203091236.htm (low carb diet better at reducing inflammation than low fat diet)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627225459.htm (Paleo vs. Mediteranean diet)
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.full (low carb nutrition and metabolism)
I'll let you start with those.0 -
If grains were essential to our health, we would have died out long ago considering our ancestors (I'm talking cavemen) ate dominantly meat followed by veggies, fruits and nuts. I don't think foods like corn or unprocessed oats are inherently bad for you - just not necessarily optimal, though they certainly have some benefits. Things like bread and pasta, however, are simply not the best things to put into your body.
Ultimately, our bodies need to be eating fresh, nutrient dense, whole natural foods - not processed crap full of weird ingredients and unnecessary additives (and very few grains are ever consumed unprocessed). To me, this seems like common sense, though a few years ago I was as skeptical as the next gal.
I don't think there's a big government conspiracy hell bent on keeping us unhealthy and uninformed - I just think there's a lot of misinformation floating around due to genuine ignorance.
Yes. This, in a nutshell!0 -
Maybe I wasn't clear. The paleo diet is fine, the food choices are healthy. Because of some of the marketing hyperbole, people are walking away with the message that grains (and legumes, apparently) are unhealthful because earlier hunter gatherers didn't eat them. On that basis I have read people recommending that others cut grains from their diet. That's my problem. It's nonsensical, unsupported advice. Cut grains/legumes to restrict calories (all diets essentially function on calorie restriction) but don't be say that they're bad for you.
It's not nonsensical or unsupported. Please refer to the numerous studies I linked above this post.If you would take the time to read and research the HEAVILY referenced Good Calories, Bad Calories (seriously - more studies than you can shake a stick at), then I think you might change your opinion on "anecdotal evidence."
What? No, that makes absolutely no sense. A study by definition is not "anecdotal". Anecdotes are n=1. You simply can not come to a scientific conclusion on the basis of one person's experience.
Good Calories, Bad Calories, according to the synopsis, excoriates refined grains such as white bread, white sugar, white rice. But, all grains are not refined. A balanced diet that includes whole grains is not unhealthy.
I was merely pointing out that people who follow the Paleo diet aren't doing so because of "anecdotal" evidence. Of course studies aren't anecdotes. There is actual peer-reviewed research that supports Paleo / Primal eating.
I think you may want to read GC, BC beyond the synopsis. Here's a shorter version of the basic premise (and why he isn't necessarily a fan of "good" carbs). http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/03/dose-of-intervention-land-of-dr-oz/
Again - I don't think anyone is trying to claim that this in the end-all, be-all diet for everyone. It works for me and many others, and probably for different reasons. Some people do fine with 70% fat (although that is not the "typical" ratio for most Paleo diets), some do great with 30% fat. I'd say somewhere 10-40% carbs is the norm. This is room for flexibility and for experimenting with what your body can handle, whether that's dairy, more fruit, starchy veggies, or the occasional brownie. Whatever.0 -
I've had a hard time finding those studies. Can you point them out to me?
Really? Guess you didn't bother looking, since the blogs that have already been linked contain plenty of links to peer-reviewed research. Here - let me post a few for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423158 (Gluten association with celiac and schizophrenia)
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39 (paleo diet - lower blood pressure, c-reactive protein, and higher insulin sensitivity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12409286?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor (type 1 diabetes may be induced by gluten)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18589004?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor (Celiac - from gluten to autoimmunity)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10489816?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor (Cereal grains - double-edged sword)
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN83_03/S0007114500000271a.pdf&code=8b1219871b94ca9dcc1b3917051f9ad5 (Lectins in RA)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract (metabolic and physiologic improvements from paleo diet)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203091236.htm (low carb diet better at reducing inflammation than low fat diet)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627225459.htm (Paleo vs. Mediteranean diet)
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.full (low carb nutrition and metabolism)
I'll let you start with those.
Study 1. Done with schizophrenic patients... They already have an inbalance
Study 2. Done with pigs. Although they are supposed to be the closest animal we have. It's still pigs
Study 3. It says some people may be
Study 4. Has nothing to do with the argument. There is a disease for everything
Study 5. Has nothing there
Study 6. Nothing there either
Study 7. Alright, finally something is there. Great if you are doing absolutely nothing. But just 9 people were tested.
Editorial...
Another Editorial
Study 8. Was a good read. However, if my diets were 80% carbs or 63% carbs, I would be diabetic. I have no doubt about that. But even in this study, it talks about high fat diets needing supplements. And yet the conclusion was for short term. Long term effects are unknown.
Some of the stuff was good. Some of it I have already seen. Point is, there still is no evidence that grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the earth. Doubt something will say it will. Grain products have been around for quite sometime, but these diseases are just coming up in numbers. Hmm...0 -
Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years.
Again, I want to point out that the low average lifespan you cite was caused by high infant mortality. And I'd also like to point out that our increased lifespan is due mostly to increased control of infectious diseases. So that has precious little to do with diet. If that is what you base the rest of your article on, it is already discounted.Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets.
The point is, there is no such diet in the mediterranean. The "mediterranean diet" is largely a fiction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03YouRHere-t.html?_r=3&ref=nutritionMediterranean people have some of the worst diets in Europe, and the Greeks are the fattest: about 75 percent of the Greek population is overweight. So if the Mediterranean diet is not what people in the Mediterranean eat, then what is it?
As anyone who has ever been in the mediterranean can observe.0 -
Some of the stuff was good. Some of it I have already seen. Point is, there still is no evidence that grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the earth. Doubt something will say it will. Grain products have been around for quite sometime, but these diseases are just coming up in numbers. Hmm...
Perhaps you're confusing your own rhetoric with Paleo? I've never seen anyone saying grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the Earth. The point is simply this: gluten has been implicated in a whole host of diseases and syndromes, many of which I linked to above. We all have the same gluten receptors in our gut (celiac / schizophrenic / pigs, or not), and it causes gut irritability. In some people, this can lead to muchos problemos. For me personally, I eat low carb, as clean as possible, and very few grains. I typically call this Paleo / Primal since it fits better than other diet descriptions. This way of eating works for me, even though I am not schizophrenic, celiac, or a pig. It works for many others as well. It certainly doesn't *hurt* anyone to try it, and could greatly help those that are suffering from celiac, rheumatoid arthritis, or other autoimmune disorders.
You asked for studies, I gave them. Your interpretation of over half of the studies is fairly absurd and makes me think that you haven't read many (any) journal articles. Science is all about baby steps, and large, longitudinal studies of human diets are nearly impossible to conduct since you would need a controlled environment and a ton of funding. There are plenty of other studies that you can find on Pubmed if you're interested in more research. I've already done the research on myself and this way of eating works for me. I dunno - this just seems like a curious amount of vitriol from someone who has apparently fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Tony Horton Marketing Machine.
0 -
70% fat, 25% protein and 5% carbs
Ok, to bring this back to the original topic, what evidence is there to support this high fat diet? And sorry, lomg post here.
First off, if you believe in the paleo/primal diet and think that there is a Government/USDA/Monsanto conspiracy that wants us to be unhealthy, uninformed, etc., please stop reading. I don't want to offend you and we have no common base to have a discussion about diet, if you reject science based rational evidence. If it works for you go for it, but let's keep this a thread based on facts, scientific facts.
Secondly reading through some of these posts it strikes me there is a basic misunderstanding about what science can do and not do. First off science does not prove anything. Science is built around the concept that you propose a hypothesis, based on a framework of your understanding of a topic. Then you try to design an experiment to test this hypothesis and the results of the experiment either support or reject the hypothesis. Rejection is final, your framework of how you look at this issue is wrong and you need to change it. Support is not final, in your experiment and conditions your hypothesis is not rejected, but in other conditions or experiments it can be rejected, which means your framework at looking at this issue can still be wrong. This is a basic way science works and is, for instance, where the endless discussion that evolution is just a hypothesis comes from. Thus, this scientific way of making progress might be frustrating to many people, science does not provide final answers, science often changes its way of looking at issues as more evidence is available, and that's why bleeding is not the main medical treatment out there anymore. That’s why scientific recommendations change over time, like for the USDA food pyramid, food recommendations, etc. The beauty of this approach is that you get better at understanding your system/diet as you go along; you adjust to new data, and can improve your understanding of how things work. That's why there is no alternative to the scientific approach, that's the only way we can make progress. Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years. And for most of us, we live a better life than any of our ancestors, all because of science. In the last 200 years we have made more progress understanding the natural world than ever before, we have airplanes, cars, internet, cell phones, man on the moon, etc, all because we used a scientific approach to examine the natural word. If you reject this scientific approach, well go back to the Stone Age, and read the top couple of lines, we can't have a rational discussion if you reject science, so please stop reading this.
Thirdly, there are two lines of evidence that scientists use, correlational and experimental. Correlational is based on comparing natural patterns, like comparing health info and diet across countries. Obviously many other factors vary too across countries in addition to the factor that you are interested in and want to examine. But, many experiments, especially with humans, are not ethical, so this is often the only approach that you can use to examine patterns in nature and human health. Then the key is to have large sample sizes over long time periods, the more data you use, the better and solid the patterns are likely to be. This is obviously difficult and expensive, which limits the number of good studies. But the gold standard is experiments. In this you manipulate, ideally, just one factor, and examine what happens. Most human diet data that we have is observational, for good reasons, you can't ethically put humans on unhealthy diets. That's a problem, because this observational data might be biased, for instance, people who smoke tend to eat more junk food and be more sedentary, it is hard to separate these three, unless you have large sample sizes, which is rarely the case. Thus most experimental studies are animal studies or short-term human studies.
Fourth, any guru, or diet specialist, who gives you absolute answers about what the key diet or diet ingredient, is a quack. Lots of quacks out there, it is a lot easier to make a living making money of a cult/diet than any honest way. Read point three again, for better or worse, science does not have any absolute answers, anyone who provides you with absolute answers, well what can I say? I would avoid drinking the cool aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
So, fifth, what do we know based on data? Note this is my interpretation, there is a vast literature on any scientific topic including diets, and I only looked at some well cited and review articles. And I avoided the cult books / web sites, anyone can make anything up and post in on the internet these days.
1. There is overwhelming evidence that being overweight is not good for you. This is based on correlational data of humans and experimental data from fruit flies to mice and rats. Put animals or humans on a restricted diet and you live a lot longer and have less disease. This is the most important thing you can do for your health. And reading this thread, yes most Western people eat too many calories, be it carbohydrates or fat, and do not exercise enough, calories in versus calories eat. Eat more than you use and you will get fat, which is a big problem. Based on animal models and human data, being too fat seems to interfere with healthy insulin sensitivity and leads to many metabolic problems. Currently, in the US something like 20% of all people is obese and another 30% overweight. Predictions are that by 2020 50% of the US population will be diabetic; we have a major health crisis developing. Thus, my interpretation, bring your BMI down to the healthy range, and preferably to the low end of the healthy range. And as a country, we need to stop subsidizing and promoting calories and change our food system to less calories and a more healthy diet, but that's a separate political issue. Everyone has a free choice, you can change your diet and not be part of this problem and there is no point blaming the USDA/Monsanto/Government for what your health and weight is.
2. Secondly, exercising is good for your health too, based on both correlational and experimental data. Increasing your activity is good for you and, in addition, helps you also to lose weight.
3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
4. Fourth, there is lots of evidence that saturated animal fats are not good for you, both observational and in experimental animal studies. Thus, I think based on this, 70% fat, especially animal fat, is not a healthy diet. And, vegetarian is good, or keep meat low, and preferentially eat fish, and poultry. Also note most wild animals are low in fat and very lean, including range fed beef and bison.
5. There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health. Again, mainly correlational, but eating more fish seems best, based on the evidence currently available.
6. Similarly for nuts, eating more unsaturated fats is correlated with good health.
7. There is not a lot of evidence either way for saturated plant fats like coconut oil. There is nothing magically good about them in the scientific literature, but there are not a lot of good studies based on longer term data, showing it is bad for you either. So, for the time being, I would eat them in moderation, and keep your intake low, based on the evidence that we have that unsaturated oils are correlated with better health and saturated fats are not.
8. Fiber, there is increasingly, both observational and experimental evidence, that increased fiber, both soluble and insoluble is good for your colon and health. Thus eat whole grains whenever you can and increase your fiber intake to 30-40 grams per day. I think the USAD recommendation is too low.
9. Cholesterol, specifically LDL, high levels are correlated with high cardiovascular disease. Note again this is correlational. There is also strong experimental evidence that taking statins, when you have high LDL, lowers your LDL level and lowers your risk for cardiovascular disease. But the link between LDL and hearth disease is correlation, statins also lower inflammation, so there is no absolute proof. But, as Bill Clinton, found out, if your LDL is high, using statins and staying on them, is a good idea. I have seen statements that eating lots of fatty animal foods, high in cholesterol is good for your health. There is no evidence supporting this and lots of evidence contradicting this, and these posts are irresponsible at best. Again, whatever you read on any web site, remember to not drink the kool aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Read up on in reputable sources before you do anything or follow any advice.
So, to answer the question about the 70% fat diet. I would not do this nor advise this, especially if you get the majority of the fat from animals or sources like butter and coconut oil. There is much more evidence that unsaturated fats and a Mediterranean diet are better for your health. Secondly skip simple sugars and refined carbohydrates and stick to whole grains. But even more important bring your BMI down to a healthy range; this will help you the most. And exercise, this is good and will also help you bring your weight down
As always, that's my current view above, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. But show me credible studies and I will change my mind. But, please do not refer to blogs or books by quacks.
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.0 -
70% fat, 25% protein and 5% carbs
Ok, to bring this back to the original topic, what evidence is there to support this high fat diet? And sorry, lomg post here.
First off, if you believe in the paleo/primal diet and think that there is a Government/USDA/Monsanto conspiracy that wants us to be unhealthy, uninformed, etc., please stop reading. I don't want to offend you and we have no common base to have a discussion about diet, if you reject science based rational evidence. If it works for you go for it, but let's keep this a thread based on facts, scientific facts.
Secondly reading through some of these posts it strikes me there is a basic misunderstanding about what science can do and not do. First off science does not prove anything. Science is built around the concept that you propose a hypothesis, based on a framework of your understanding of a topic. Then you try to design an experiment to test this hypothesis and the results of the experiment either support or reject the hypothesis. Rejection is final, your framework of how you look at this issue is wrong and you need to change it. Support is not final, in your experiment and conditions your hypothesis is not rejected, but in other conditions or experiments it can be rejected, which means your framework at looking at this issue can still be wrong. This is a basic way science works and is, for instance, where the endless discussion that evolution is just a hypothesis comes from. Thus, this scientific way of making progress might be frustrating to many people, science does not provide final answers, science often changes its way of looking at issues as more evidence is available, and that's why bleeding is not the main medical treatment out there anymore. That’s why scientific recommendations change over time, like for the USDA food pyramid, food recommendations, etc. The beauty of this approach is that you get better at understanding your system/diet as you go along; you adjust to new data, and can improve your understanding of how things work. That's why there is no alternative to the scientific approach, that's the only way we can make progress. Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years. And for most of us, we live a better life than any of our ancestors, all because of science. In the last 200 years we have made more progress understanding the natural world than ever before, we have airplanes, cars, internet, cell phones, man on the moon, etc, all because we used a scientific approach to examine the natural word. If you reject this scientific approach, well go back to the Stone Age, and read the top couple of lines, we can't have a rational discussion if you reject science, so please stop reading this.
Thirdly, there are two lines of evidence that scientists use, correlational and experimental. Correlational is based on comparing natural patterns, like comparing health info and diet across countries. Obviously many other factors vary too across countries in addition to the factor that you are interested in and want to examine. But, many experiments, especially with humans, are not ethical, so this is often the only approach that you can use to examine patterns in nature and human health. Then the key is to have large sample sizes over long time periods, the more data you use, the better and solid the patterns are likely to be. This is obviously difficult and expensive, which limits the number of good studies. But the gold standard is experiments. In this you manipulate, ideally, just one factor, and examine what happens. Most human diet data that we have is observational, for good reasons, you can't ethically put humans on unhealthy diets. That's a problem, because this observational data might be biased, for instance, people who smoke tend to eat more junk food and be more sedentary, it is hard to separate these three, unless you have large sample sizes, which is rarely the case. Thus most experimental studies are animal studies or short-term human studies.
Fourth, any guru, or diet specialist, who gives you absolute answers about what the key diet or diet ingredient, is a quack. Lots of quacks out there, it is a lot easier to make a living making money of a cult/diet than any honest way. Read point three again, for better or worse, science does not have any absolute answers, anyone who provides you with absolute answers, well what can I say? I would avoid drinking the cool aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
So, fifth, what do we know based on data? Note this is my interpretation, there is a vast literature on any scientific topic including diets, and I only looked at some well cited and review articles. And I avoided the cult books / web sites, anyone can make anything up and post in on the internet these days.
1. There is overwhelming evidence that being overweight is not good for you. This is based on correlational data of humans and experimental data from fruit flies to mice and rats. Put animals or humans on a restricted diet and you live a lot longer and have less disease. This is the most important thing you can do for your health. And reading this thread, yes most Western people eat too many calories, be it carbohydrates or fat, and do not exercise enough, calories in versus calories eat. Eat more than you use and you will get fat, which is a big problem. Based on animal models and human data, being too fat seems to interfere with healthy insulin sensitivity and leads to many metabolic problems. Currently, in the US something like 20% of all people is obese and another 30% overweight. Predictions are that by 2020 50% of the US population will be diabetic; we have a major health crisis developing. Thus, my interpretation, bring your BMI down to the healthy range, and preferably to the low end of the healthy range. And as a country, we need to stop subsidizing and promoting calories and change our food system to less calories and a more healthy diet, but that's a separate political issue. Everyone has a free choice, you can change your diet and not be part of this problem and there is no point blaming the USDA/Monsanto/Government for what your health and weight is.
2. Secondly, exercising is good for your health too, based on both correlational and experimental data. Increasing your activity is good for you and, in addition, helps you also to lose weight.
3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
4. Fourth, there is lots of evidence that saturated animal fats are not good for you, both observational and in experimental animal studies. Thus, I think based on this, 70% fat, especially animal fat, is not a healthy diet. And, vegetarian is good, or keep meat low, and preferentially eat fish, and poultry. Also note most wild animals are low in fat and very lean, including range fed beef and bison.
5. There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health. Again, mainly correlational, but eating more fish seems best, based on the evidence currently available.
6. Similarly for nuts, eating more unsaturated fats is correlated with good health.
7. There is not a lot of evidence either way for saturated plant fats like coconut oil. There is nothing magically good about them in the scientific literature, but there are not a lot of good studies based on longer term data, showing it is bad for you either. So, for the time being, I would eat them in moderation, and keep your intake low, based on the evidence that we have that unsaturated oils are correlated with better health and saturated fats are not.
8. Fiber, there is increasingly, both observational and experimental evidence, that increased fiber, both soluble and insoluble is good for your colon and health. Thus eat whole grains whenever you can and increase your fiber intake to 30-40 grams per day. I think the USAD recommendation is too low.
9. Cholesterol, specifically LDL, high levels are correlated with high cardiovascular disease. Note again this is correlational. There is also strong experimental evidence that taking statins, when you have high LDL, lowers your LDL level and lowers your risk for cardiovascular disease. But the link between LDL and hearth disease is correlation, statins also lower inflammation, so there is no absolute proof. But, as Bill Clinton, found out, if your LDL is high, using statins and staying on them, is a good idea. I have seen statements that eating lots of fatty animal foods, high in cholesterol is good for your health. There is no evidence supporting this and lots of evidence contradicting this, and these posts are irresponsible at best. Again, whatever you read on any web site, remember to not drink the kool aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Read up on in reputable sources before you do anything or follow any advice.
So, to answer the question about the 70% fat diet. I would not do this nor advise this, especially if you get the majority of the fat from animals or sources like butter and coconut oil. There is much more evidence that unsaturated fats and a Mediterranean diet are better for your health. Secondly skip simple sugars and refined carbohydrates and stick to whole grains. But even more important bring your BMI down to a healthy range; this will help you the most. And exercise, this is good and will also help you bring your weight down
As always, that's my current view above, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. But show me credible studies and I will change my mind. But, please do not refer to blogs or books by quacks.
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.0 -
70% fat, 25% protein and 5% carbs
Ok, to bring this back to the original topic, what evidence is there to support this high fat diet? And sorry, lomg post here.
First off, if you believe in the paleo/primal diet and think that there is a Government/USDA/Monsanto conspiracy that wants us to be unhealthy, uninformed, etc., please stop reading. I don't want to offend you and we have no common base to have a discussion about diet, if you reject science based rational evidence. If it works for you go for it, but let's keep this a thread based on facts, scientific facts.
Secondly reading through some of these posts it strikes me there is a basic misunderstanding about what science can do and not do. First off science does not prove anything. Science is built around the concept that you propose a hypothesis, based on a framework of your understanding of a topic. Then you try to design an experiment to test this hypothesis and the results of the experiment either support or reject the hypothesis. Rejection is final, your framework of how you look at this issue is wrong and you need to change it. Support is not final, in your experiment and conditions your hypothesis is not rejected, but in other conditions or experiments it can be rejected, which means your framework at looking at this issue can still be wrong. This is a basic way science works and is, for instance, where the endless discussion that evolution is just a hypothesis comes from. Thus, this scientific way of making progress might be frustrating to many people, science does not provide final answers, science often changes its way of looking at issues as more evidence is available, and that's why bleeding is not the main medical treatment out there anymore. That’s why scientific recommendations change over time, like for the USDA food pyramid, food recommendations, etc. The beauty of this approach is that you get better at understanding your system/diet as you go along; you adjust to new data, and can improve your understanding of how things work. That's why there is no alternative to the scientific approach, that's the only way we can make progress. Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years. And for most of us, we live a better life than any of our ancestors, all because of science. In the last 200 years we have made more progress understanding the natural world than ever before, we have airplanes, cars, internet, cell phones, man on the moon, etc, all because we used a scientific approach to examine the natural word. If you reject this scientific approach, well go back to the Stone Age, and read the top couple of lines, we can't have a rational discussion if you reject science, so please stop reading this.
Thirdly, there are two lines of evidence that scientists use, correlational and experimental. Correlational is based on comparing natural patterns, like comparing health info and diet across countries. Obviously many other factors vary too across countries in addition to the factor that you are interested in and want to examine. But, many experiments, especially with humans, are not ethical, so this is often the only approach that you can use to examine patterns in nature and human health. Then the key is to have large sample sizes over long time periods, the more data you use, the better and solid the patterns are likely to be. This is obviously difficult and expensive, which limits the number of good studies. But the gold standard is experiments. In this you manipulate, ideally, just one factor, and examine what happens. Most human diet data that we have is observational, for good reasons, you can't ethically put humans on unhealthy diets. That's a problem, because this observational data might be biased, for instance, people who smoke tend to eat more junk food and be more sedentary, it is hard to separate these three, unless you have large sample sizes, which is rarely the case. Thus most experimental studies are animal studies or short-term human studies.
Fourth, any guru, or diet specialist, who gives you absolute answers about what the key diet or diet ingredient, is a quack. Lots of quacks out there, it is a lot easier to make a living making money of a cult/diet than any honest way. Read point three again, for better or worse, science does not have any absolute answers, anyone who provides you with absolute answers, well what can I say? I would avoid drinking the cool aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
So, fifth, what do we know based on data? Note this is my interpretation, there is a vast literature on any scientific topic including diets, and I only looked at some well cited and review articles. And I avoided the cult books / web sites, anyone can make anything up and post in on the internet these days.
1. There is overwhelming evidence that being overweight is not good for you. This is based on correlational data of humans and experimental data from fruit flies to mice and rats. Put animals or humans on a restricted diet and you live a lot longer and have less disease. This is the most important thing you can do for your health. And reading this thread, yes most Western people eat too many calories, be it carbohydrates or fat, and do not exercise enough, calories in versus calories eat. Eat more than you use and you will get fat, which is a big problem. Based on animal models and human data, being too fat seems to interfere with healthy insulin sensitivity and leads to many metabolic problems. Currently, in the US something like 20% of all people is obese and another 30% overweight. Predictions are that by 2020 50% of the US population will be diabetic; we have a major health crisis developing. Thus, my interpretation, bring your BMI down to the healthy range, and preferably to the low end of the healthy range. And as a country, we need to stop subsidizing and promoting calories and change our food system to less calories and a more healthy diet, but that's a separate political issue. Everyone has a free choice, you can change your diet and not be part of this problem and there is no point blaming the USDA/Monsanto/Government for what your health and weight is.
2. Secondly, exercising is good for your health too, based on both correlational and experimental data. Increasing your activity is good for you and, in addition, helps you also to lose weight.
3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
4. Fourth, there is lots of evidence that saturated animal fats are not good for you, both observational and in experimental animal studies. Thus, I think based on this, 70% fat, especially animal fat, is not a healthy diet. And, vegetarian is good, or keep meat low, and preferentially eat fish, and poultry. Also note most wild animals are low in fat and very lean, including range fed beef and bison.
5. There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health. Again, mainly correlational, but eating more fish seems best, based on the evidence currently available.
6. Similarly for nuts, eating more unsaturated fats is correlated with good health.
7. There is not a lot of evidence either way for saturated plant fats like coconut oil. There is nothing magically good about them in the scientific literature, but there are not a lot of good studies based on longer term data, showing it is bad for you either. So, for the time being, I would eat them in moderation, and keep your intake low, based on the evidence that we have that unsaturated oils are correlated with better health and saturated fats are not.
8. Fiber, there is increasingly, both observational and experimental evidence, that increased fiber, both soluble and insoluble is good for your colon and health. Thus eat whole grains whenever you can and increase your fiber intake to 30-40 grams per day. I think the USAD recommendation is too low.
9. Cholesterol, specifically LDL, high levels are correlated with high cardiovascular disease. Note again this is correlational. There is also strong experimental evidence that taking statins, when you have high LDL, lowers your LDL level and lowers your risk for cardiovascular disease. But the link between LDL and hearth disease is correlation, statins also lower inflammation, so there is no absolute proof. But, as Bill Clinton, found out, if your LDL is high, using statins and staying on them, is a good idea. I have seen statements that eating lots of fatty animal foods, high in cholesterol is good for your health. There is no evidence supporting this and lots of evidence contradicting this, and these posts are irresponsible at best. Again, whatever you read on any web site, remember to not drink the kool aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Read up on in reputable sources before you do anything or follow any advice.
So, to answer the question about the 70% fat diet. I would not do this nor advise this, especially if you get the majority of the fat from animals or sources like butter and coconut oil. There is much more evidence that unsaturated fats and a Mediterranean diet are better for your health. Secondly skip simple sugars and refined carbohydrates and stick to whole grains. But even more important bring your BMI down to a healthy range; this will help you the most. And exercise, this is good and will also help you bring your weight down
As always, that's my current view above, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. But show me credible studies and I will change my mind. But, please do not refer to blogs or books by quacks.
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.
Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions