Are high fat diets truly health ?

neanderthin

Unfortunately most if not all studies about saturated fat are associated with other variables where it's then linked to disease, obesity, cancer, diabetes and those other factors generally are lifestyle. Much like the study you linked to.

Better question to ask is, if in fact saturated fat is deleterious to health, then there must be a lower safe limit where the mechanisms that cause disease from saturated fat are negated. Lets face it if saturated fat was the boogy man then there would be no argument about what in saturated fat causes heart disease, but we don't, because it doesn't.

Again I don't see the point in leaving out a macro to lose weight or justify a lifestyle, but as long as your getting proper nutrition overall then consume more fat than the RDA or what you might think is healthy probably is not too much of a concern.

I usually avoid things like bacon (more because of the nitrites than anything else) but I don't believe it is a terribly healthy thing to eat. I like to eat healthy fats like avocados--and nuts also. I think it is a mistake to exclude both of those very healthy foods. In those studies where they link saturated fat to obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, one wonders if there was any attempt to limit sugar consumption. I believe that sugar will turn out to be much more deleterious to health than saturated fat. They already know that sugar consumption is tied to high triglycerides and that is part of the cardiovascular disease picture.

I tend to take the view that almost anything taken in excess, might be detrimental to health. I have no issue with fat, just unsure as to how healthy it would be to have a diet consisting of large amounts of saturated ANIMAL fat. I eat between 70 and 90g a day, as said, so I am hardly of the low fat brigade. I also believe highly processed, sugary foods may well be a larger issue, but as said, I think anything in excess is probably not too healthy, barring perhaps vegetables. I regularly have avocado, nuts, eggs and even a few tbsp coconut oil a week as well as some butter and full fat cottage cheese. But fat is 35-40% of my diet.

Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.

Why did you emphasis "ANIMAL" saturated fat, what's in that saturated fat that you feel might be different than other sources of saturated fat?

I merely go on the fact it has been spread about for years, as I am sure you are aware, that saturated animal fat, in particular, is unhealthy. It is a sad world where a person cannot try and find out other peoples opinions and show genuine curiosity, without either being asked to produce a stream of studies, or being attacked for daring to have questions. There have been endless articles in the press basically. Linking to studies, and claiming saturated animal fat is bad for the arteries. I am looking for studies that show different because it is an area I have been looking into recently since considering my own dietary intake.

Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.

i personally think humans are designed to eat animal fats. i don't think we are designed to eat artificial (not sure that's the right word) fats such as margarines that have been created in a lab to try and mimic butter. the ingredients may mostly be natural, but the combination isn't anything you'd find in a field. and personally, a lovely thick, marbled steak tastes amazing.
when it comes to research that is published, unfortunately you have to look at who funded the studies, who published them and how the results make it into the mainstream consciousness. there are hundreds of studies written up and published every week, but very few are thrown in our faces by the media. just look at how many times we have been told wine is bad for us, then it's good for us again. there is a huge industry out there making billions from people being scared of eating animal fat. and they have the funds to keep the majority thinking that way...

Are there any studies that are not done by people with vested interests ? That seems to be an issue. Sometimes I think, it is more stressful trying to research and learn more, and find a suitable diet for oneself, than it is to just stop caring altogether, lol. Who serves to make money from scaring people off from animal fats ? The vegetable oil and fake butter producers, I suppose ? Though even a lot of doctors and dieticians seem to follow the mainstream and claim saturated animal fat is bad. Maybe it is best just to try things and figure we all die of something in the end anyway.

A little misleading to say that studies are somehow altered to suit an opinion. Good science is practiced by the vast majority of scientists all over the world. Understanding the abstract or summary along with the materials and method is I think first and foremost with the general discussion analyzed for it's limitations and fact should clearly be separated from speculation.

The biggest problem generally will be understanding what the study is trying to accomplish, or should I say what someone wants a particular study's methods and limitations to show a bias one way or another.....this is where all the win is. For example the dairy industry, vegan associations, cattleman's association will pick certain studies methods based on their abstract compliance to limit or highlight information and will in fact expect those same limitations to either convince or dispel what might be considered a popular conclusion. It's also rare that any one study will have any conclusive proof one way or another and tht is how science should work.

babymaddux

YES. Better revisit those "studies". Are you reading studies or published reports from government or health organizations? Ancel Keys research has had the greatest impact on what we are told is healthy, even though he cherry picked his data to show a link between heart disease and saturated fat, when there actually is none. In the past and to this day, any researcher who challenges, or disproves, Keys' fat hypothesis risks disappearing into oblivion. The processed food industry has every interest in keeping us scared of saturated fat and the health/pharmaceutical industry has every interest in keeping us sick.

Is it logical that the food we are adapted to eat for a million years or so would cause disease? If so, why do modern hunter/gatherers show no "diseases of civilization" until they start eating sugar, refined flours, etc.?

Just one example: Inuit had no heart disease, diabetes, cancer, tooth decay, autoimmune disorders until they started eating what the rest of us are eating. Their natural diet is animal based, very high in fat, with a few berries and sea vegetables (depends on region) for a brief period. Ancel Keys, and some other researchers, ignored the research of the Inuit (along with larger populations where the data disproved his hypothesis). Perhaps he thought they weren't quite human or were somehow genetically distinct from the rest of us (they are not).

I tire of arguing this issue repeatedly on MFP. If you really were well read on this subject, you would no longer fear natural fats. The only results of a very high fat diet (quality matters!) are: the resolution/prevention of disease, a healthy body weight, a happy mind, and crazy energy. Being sick, sad, and fat is NOT normal. Check out the research of Dr. Weston Price; that's a good place to start your research.

Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.

But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.

They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.

Then I would wonder about cancer---especially pancreatic cancer. They obviously died of something. A diet that is very high in fructose is associated with pancreatic cancer, but perhaps there is another factor at work beside just fructose.

Nope, no cancer, and they died old generally. Funny how some people look at fruit as dangerous.

I love fruit, but oddly, have more than a few pieces a day and it seems to impact my weight more than having chocolate or somesuch. No idea why.

what i understand of this comes from reading paleo material so it may be biased, but my understanding is that when eating things high in sugar, ie fruit, if the energy from the fructose and glucose isn't used by your body it is stored in an accessible form for future use and this is what actually forms the fat deposits in our bodies. our systems aren't designed to break down animal fat and then reassemble it for storage in human form. i guess that's why when i eat a very high fat meal, i get the runs. we can't store it so we get rid.
i may have completely butchered the science there, sorry, i'm an accountant. but that's what i got from what i read. and when you think most fruit is very high in sugar... i'm trying to cut back on the fun stuff like grapes and watermelon now. instead i'm eating a small box of raspberries a day. lower sugar and great fiber.

Shadowknight137

I don't see why they would be UNhealthy, unless the high-fat intake meant a lowered protein intake - al a idiots like Danan Carpender and Jimmy Moore who focus entirely on "weight".

Fat is essential, while carbs are not. This is fact, yes. However, fat after a certain threshold - around 0.5g per lb of bodyweight - kinda just becomes... well, empty calories. Sure, tasty empty calories, and an easy way to get your calories to meet their goals, but not quite as beneficial as carbs, of which would give you more energy for more intense exercise should you fill the remainder of your cals with them.
So no, IMO, high-fat diets are not unhealthy. But they are unnecessary, unless medically diagnosed as otherwise.

BTW, Primal/Paleo are not necessarily low carb; I, for example, fit into the "Primal" category (best place for coeliac recipes? Primal and Paleo blogs, of course) and aim for at least 200g+ of carbs a day. It jus depends on the source, ie, bread vs fruit or potatoes.

babymaddux

Unfortunately most if not all studies about saturated fat are associated with other variables where it's then linked to disease, obesity, cancer, diabetes and those other factors generally are lifestyle. Much like the study you linked to.

Better question to ask is, if in fact saturated fat is deleterious to health, then there must be a lower safe limit where the mechanisms that cause disease from saturated fat are negated. Lets face it if saturated fat was the boogy man then there would be no argument about what in saturated fat causes heart disease, but we don't, because it doesn't.

Again I don't see the point in leaving out a macro to lose weight or justify a lifestyle, but as long as your getting proper nutrition overall then consume more fat than the RDA or what you might think is healthy probably is not too much of a concern.

I usually avoid things like bacon (more because of the nitrites than anything else) but I don't believe it is a terribly healthy thing to eat. I like to eat healthy fats like avocados--and nuts also. I think it is a mistake to exclude both of those very healthy foods. In those studies where they link saturated fat to obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, one wonders if there was any attempt to limit sugar consumption. I believe that sugar will turn out to be much more deleterious to health than saturated fat. They already know that sugar consumption is tied to high triglycerides and that is part of the cardiovascular disease picture.

I tend to take the view that almost anything taken in excess, might be detrimental to health. I have no issue with fat, just unsure as to how healthy it would be to have a diet consisting of large amounts of saturated ANIMAL fat. I eat between 70 and 90g a day, as said, so I am hardly of the low fat brigade. I also believe highly processed, sugary foods may well be a larger issue, but as said, I think anything in excess is probably not too healthy, barring perhaps vegetables. I regularly have avocado, nuts, eggs and even a few tbsp coconut oil a week as well as some butter and full fat cottage cheese. But fat is 35-40% of my diet.

Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.

Why did you emphasis "ANIMAL" saturated fat, what's in that saturated fat that you feel might be different than other sources of saturated fat?

I merely go on the fact it has been spread about for years, as I am sure you are aware, that saturated animal fat, in particular, is unhealthy. It is a sad world where a person cannot try and find out other peoples opinions and show genuine curiosity, without either being asked to produce a stream of studies, or being attacked for daring to have questions. There have been endless articles in the press basically. Linking to studies, and claiming saturated animal fat is bad for the arteries. I am looking for studies that show different because it is an area I have been looking into recently since considering my own dietary intake.

Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.

i personally think humans are designed to eat animal fats. i don't think we are designed to eat artificial (not sure that's the right word) fats such as margarines that have been created in a lab to try and mimic butter. the ingredients may mostly be natural, but the combination isn't anything you'd find in a field. and personally, a lovely thick, marbled steak tastes amazing.
when it comes to research that is published, unfortunately you have to look at who funded the studies, who published them and how the results make it into the mainstream consciousness. there are hundreds of studies written up and published every week, but very few are thrown in our faces by the media. just look at how many times we have been told wine is bad for us, then it's good for us again. there is a huge industry out there making billions from people being scared of eating animal fat. and they have the funds to keep the majority thinking that way...

Are there any studies that are not done by people with vested interests ? That seems to be an issue. Sometimes I think, it is more stressful trying to research and learn more, and find a suitable diet for oneself, than it is to just stop caring altogether, lol. Who serves to make money from scaring people off from animal fats ? The vegetable oil and fake butter producers, I suppose ? Though even a lot of doctors and dieticians seem to follow the mainstream and claim saturated animal fat is bad. Maybe it is best just to try things and figure we all die of something in the end anyway.

who makes the money? anyone who produces 'low fat' foods. the lean cuisines etc that fill supermarket freezers, coolers and shelves.
as for finding unbiased studies, it can definitely be done. but you need to go back to the journals and look at where funding came from. and look at how the research got into the national newspapers. i'm not slating the scientists per sey, more the marketing machines that scour a 20000 word paper for the 2 sentences that suggest something they can use, and then take 2 years worth of possibly unrelated work to back their claim. and realistically, if you were paid by kraft foods for example, you aren't going to say that their low fat ready meals are less healthy than a big steak with fat along the edges :ohwell:

babymaddux

I don't see why they would be UNhealthy, unless the high-fat intake meant a lowered protein intake - al a idiots like Danan Carpender and Jimmy Moore who focus entirely on "weight".

Fat is essential, while carbs are not. This is fact, yes. However, fat after a certain threshold - around 0.5g per lb of bodyweight - kinda just becomes... well, empty calories. Sure, tasty empty calories, and an easy way to get your calories to meet their goals, but not quite as beneficial as carbs, of which would give you more energy for more intense exercise should you fill the remainder of your cals with them.
So no, IMO, high-fat diets are not unhealthy. But they are unnecessary, unless medically diagnosed as otherwise.

BTW, Primal/Paleo are not necessarily low carb; I, for example, fit into the "Primal" category (best place for coeliac recipes? Primal and Paleo blogs, of course) and aim for at least 200g+ of carbs a day. It jus depends on the source, ie, bread vs fruit or potatoes.

love this guy! his meals are amazing! higher fat done well :drinker:

SanteMulberry

YES. Better revisit those "studies". Are you reading studies or published reports from government or health organizations? Ancel Keys research has had the greatest impact on what we are told is healthy, even though he cherry picked his data to show a link between heart disease and saturated fat, when there actually is none. In the past and to this day, any researcher who challenges, or disproves, Keys' fat hypothesis risks disappearing into oblivion. The processed food industry has every interest in keeping us scared of saturated fat and the health/pharmaceutical industry has every interest in keeping us sick.

Is it logical that the food we are adapted to eat for a million years or so would cause disease? If so, why do modern hunter/gatherers show no "diseases of civilization" until they start eating sugar, refined flours, etc.?

Just one example: Inuit had no heart disease, diabetes, cancer, tooth decay, autoimmune disorders until they started eating what the rest of us are eating. Their natural diet is animal based, very high in fat, with a few berries and sea vegetables (depends on region) for a brief period. Ancel Keys, and some other researchers, ignored the research of the Inuit (along with larger populations where the data disproved his hypothesis). Perhaps he thought they weren't quite human or were somehow genetically distinct from the rest of us (they are not).

I tire of arguing this issue repeatedly on MFP. If you really were well read on this subject, you would no longer fear natural fats. The only results of a very high fat diet (quality matters!) are: the resolution/prevention of disease, a healthy body weight, a happy mind, and crazy energy. Being sick, sad, and fat is NOT normal. Check out the research of Dr. Weston Price; that's a good place to start your research.

Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.

But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.

They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.

Then I would wonder about cancer---especially pancreatic cancer. They obviously died of something. A diet that is very high in fructose is associated with pancreatic cancer, but perhaps there is another factor at work beside just fructose.

Nope, no cancer, and they died old generally. Funny how some people look at fruit as dangerous.

I don't think fruit is dangerous per se, when eaten in normal amounts. However, a "fruitarian" diet could be problematic. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already been associated with pancreatic cancer and it is likely the fructose that is responsible for the damage. Steve Jobs was a "fruitarian" for many years (he even named his company after his favorite fruit, Apple Inc.) As you likely know, he died of pancreatic cancer. But the vast majority of people would not follow such a restrictive diet (although there was one fellow on MFP who said that he was eating an "all-fruit" diet and that he had lost 70 pounds).

But we aren't in the clear yet, it seems. The S.A.D. includes a LOT of fructose in the form of sugar consumption. It is the greatest exposure to fructose (sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The estimates are that at least 500 calories worth of sugar are eaten per day, both in "sugary" foods and "hidden" in processed food. (For example, do they really need to add so much sugar to Wendy's chili?) Apparently the food processors have long since figured out the addictive quality of sugar and add it as, not only a cheap filler, but as a way of ensuring that we will eat more of that food. There is a lot of leading edge research that implicates sugar and specifically its fructose portion as an "anti-satiety" switch that leads to food addiction in sensitive individuals. Here is a link to the proceedings of a symposium on "food addiction" where sugar consumption was mentioned often in connection with it, along with a host of other serious diseases: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

auddii

I don't think fruit is dangerous per se, when eaten in normal amounts. However, a "fruitarian" diet could be problematic. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already been associated with pancreatic cancer and it is likely the fructose that is responsible for the damage. Steve Jobs was a "fruitarian" for many years (he even named his company after his favorite fruit, Apple Inc.) As you likely know, he died of pancreatic cancer. But the vast majority of people would not follow such a restrictive diet (although there was one fellow on MFP who said that he was eating an "all-fruit" diet and that he had lost 70 pounds).

But we aren't in the clear yet, it seems. The S.A.D. includes a LOT of fructose in the form of sugar consumption. It is the greatest exposure to fructose (sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The estimates are that at least 500 calories worth of sugar are eaten per day, both in "sugary" foods and "hidden" in processed food. (For example, do they really need to add so much sugar to Wendy's chili?) Apparently the food processors have long since figured out the addictive quality of sugar and add it as, not only a cheap filler, but as a way of ensuring that we will eat more of that food. There is a lot of leading edge research that implicates sugar and specifically its fructose portion as an "anti-satiety" switch that leads to food addiction in sensitive individuals. Here is a link to the proceedings of a symposium on "food addiction" where sugar consumption was mentioned often in connection with it, along with a host of other serious diseases: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

The problems with these types of studies is that they show correlation, not causation. HFCS is in a lot of products that are highly processed and contain things like red dye #235. What if it's the dye that causes cancer? You just never really know what these studies show without double blind randomized controlled trials. And as far as I know, no one has done that yet with fructose.

SanteMulberry

Unfortunately most if not all studies about saturated fat are associated with other variables where it's then linked to disease, obesity, cancer, diabetes and those other factors generally are lifestyle. Much like the study you linked to.

Better question to ask is, if in fact saturated fat is deleterious to health, then there must be a lower safe limit where the mechanisms that cause disease from saturated fat are negated. Lets face it if saturated fat was the boogy man then there would be no argument about what in saturated fat causes heart disease, but we don't, because it doesn't.

Again I don't see the point in leaving out a macro to lose weight or justify a lifestyle, but as long as your getting proper nutrition overall then consume more fat than the RDA or what you might think is healthy probably is not too much of a concern.

I usually avoid things like bacon (more because of the nitrites than anything else) but I don't believe it is a terribly healthy thing to eat. I like to eat healthy fats like avocados--and nuts also. I think it is a mistake to exclude both of those very healthy foods. In those studies where they link saturated fat to obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, one wonders if there was any attempt to limit sugar consumption. I believe that sugar will turn out to be much more deleterious to health than saturated fat. They already know that sugar consumption is tied to high triglycerides and that is part of the cardiovascular disease picture.

I tend to take the view that almost anything taken in excess, might be detrimental to health. I have no issue with fat, just unsure as to how healthy it would be to have a diet consisting of large amounts of saturated ANIMAL fat. I eat between 70 and 90g a day, as said, so I am hardly of the low fat brigade. I also believe highly processed, sugary foods may well be a larger issue, but as said, I think anything in excess is probably not too healthy, barring perhaps vegetables. I regularly have avocado, nuts, eggs and even a few tbsp coconut oil a week as well as some butter and full fat cottage cheese. But fat is 35-40% of my diet.

Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.

Why did you emphasis "ANIMAL" saturated fat, what's in that saturated fat that you feel might be different than other sources of saturated fat?

I merely go on the fact it has been spread about for years, as I am sure you are aware, that saturated animal fat, in particular, is unhealthy. It is a sad world where a person cannot try and find out other peoples opinions and show genuine curiosity, without either being asked to produce a stream of studies, or being attacked for daring to have questions. There have been endless articles in the press basically. Linking to studies, and claiming saturated animal fat is bad for the arteries. I am looking for studies that show different because it is an area I have been looking into recently since considering my own dietary intake.

Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.

It is understandable though, that people might get confused by numerous articles posted on an almost daily basis in various places over the years, saying that certain fats are bad, and it still goes on, and most people are not going to look deeper into it and devote hours to following up endless studies, they will simply read, maybe do a bit of further reading, and conclude that since it had been said in so many places that certain fats are bad, it must be true.

I, personally, don't like bacon anyway, but I do like butter and full fat dairy and do have it in my diet. I have been toying with the idea of more fat, hence I am now at a higher percentage than I was, to see how I felt. I simply posted as I am genuinely wishing to learn more, having seen a lot posting about being on a high fat diet. And given I have enough health issues with emphysema and hypothyroid, I would not wish to add any other issues, lol.

For sure. I've invested a lot of my time over the last decade researching nutrition but mostly lipids and cholesterol and I must say it's a different reality from where I started. Dietary journalism is generally sensationalism and job security isn't bucking the trends of popular opinion, but emphasizing points that sell copy. Saying saturated fat is not unhealthy would mean they and everyone have either been wrong or ignored the conflicting science that was available 40 years ago and still is today. Everyone likes a villain and since the popular pendulum is now swinging in the opposite direction carbs are now in epic proportions the new villain.

I do not even know the best places the public can actually access studies, it would have been easier when I was a university student. Obviously, I follow links to what studies I can, but some are inaccessible to me. It gets draining when you are the sort to want to read everything you can about something before following it up and changing something in your own life. I have been researching optimal exercise, books on the diets of those in areas with a higher than average number of centenarians, books on paleo, books on wholefood, plant based diets, and it does my head in sometimes to be honest, as everyone thinks their way is the only way to optimal health, and they give all these convincing extracts from studies to back up their view, and well.

Right now, I am taking the stance of just keeping a balance and having more fat if I crave it, it varies day to day according to what I had and did the day before. Body intuition, I suppose. I do think what diet might work best depends on individual needs and activity levels to a degree as well. I know I might not do so well on very low carb as I suffer depression/bipolar that is not treated by medicine(my choice) and low carb tends to severely impact my mood. Maybe high fat would balance that out, I do not know. I do know that doing high protein does nothing for me, When the protein is from lean meat, I remain hungry. I know that adding coconut oil to my fish or chicken does not fill me up either. I know that having cream and cheese does fill me up. The most filling meal I had recently was a baked potato with 4 eggs and a little butter and salad. High carb. But have salmon or chicken baked in coconut oil with a pile of vegetables and a sweet potato and I am hungry an hour later. Go figure. I am just trying to work out what might be beneficial for me in terms of weight control, health and mood balance,

Edited because typing on an ipad is a nightmare, lol.

You are wise to avoid SSRIs---I think that the great experiment with them, using the populace as the testing animals will ultimately prove to be a disaster (and there is already a LOT of evidence that it has had disastrous consequences). There are herbals that can boost serotonin production, but if eating sufficient quantities of carbs does it for you, I wouldn't go that route either. I agree on the dairy products. There is a superior satiety element in dairy products that is difficult to achieve with other foods. And some of the research suggests that it is specifically the fat in dairy that has the effect---or the combination of dairy fat and the galactose that is there.

The research has already been done on the "good fats" (avocados, nuts, olives, etc.) and their impact on health. There was just another study announced the other day, that looked at a "low-fat" diet vs. a diet high in "good fats". They actually said that the results were so clear in favor of the high fat diet that they considered it unethical to continue restricting fats in the control group.

SanteMulberry

I don't think fruit is dangerous per se, when eaten in normal amounts. However, a "fruitarian" diet could be problematic. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already been associated with pancreatic cancer and it is likely the fructose that is responsible for the damage. Steve Jobs was a "fruitarian" for many years (he even named his company after his favorite fruit, Apple Inc.) As you likely know, he died of pancreatic cancer. But the vast majority of people would not follow such a restrictive diet (although there was one fellow on MFP who said that he was eating an "all-fruit" diet and that he had lost 70 pounds).

But we aren't in the clear yet, it seems. The S.A.D. includes a LOT of fructose in the form of sugar consumption. It is the greatest exposure to fructose (sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The estimates are that at least 500 calories worth of sugar are eaten per day, both in "sugary" foods and "hidden" in processed food. (For example, do they really need to add so much sugar to Wendy's chili?) Apparently the food processors have long since figured out the addictive quality of sugar and add it as, not only a cheap filler, but as a way of ensuring that we will eat more of that food. There is a lot of leading edge research that implicates sugar and specifically its fructose portion as an "anti-satiety" switch that leads to food addiction in sensitive individuals. Here is a link to the proceedings of a symposium on "food addiction" where sugar consumption was mentioned often in connection with it, along with a host of other serious diseases: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

The problems with these types of studies is that they show correlation, not causation. HFCS is in a lot of products that are highly processed and contain things like red dye #235. What if it's the dye that causes cancer? You just never really know what these studies show without double blind randomized controlled trials. And as far as I know, no one has done that yet with fructose.

No, the work of one of the presenters, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. (he's head of the renal division in the medical center at the University of Colorado) is very interesting. He has demonstrated the process by which high fructose consumption leads to a host of diseases---among them, fatty liver, obesity, Type II diabetes, gouty arthritis, hypertension, renal disease and failure because of its causative role in raising serum uric acid levels. Johnson and his research team has been awarded an NIH grant to study the epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America. What he expects to find is that their habit of drinking soda pop and sugar-sweetened fruit juice, while working in the very hot sugar cane fields (where it is very difficult to stay hydrated) has contributed to the greatly increased level of uric acid in their blood. Under conditions of dehydration the uric acid forms needle-like crystals of uric acid that damages their kidneys. Humans are the only mammals who do not have the enzyme uricase (we have the gene for it but it is non-functional). Because of this, the only way we have of getting rid of excess uric acid is through the kidneys.

Johnson has studied other animals and says that fatty liver and Type II diabetes are normal states for animals--that they will instinctively seek fructose to build up their fat reserves in preparation for scarce food supplies. Among more primitive humans, it is likely that the fruit that is plentiful at the end of summer (in temperate climates) helped them to add fat for the long winters, when they would be forced to switch to a game-based diet along with whatever stored grain and dried fruit they were able to ration out. They would get very lean too, if the winter stretched out unusually long. Today, Western humans have access to food, and especially sugar as a source of fructose, the year round. The effect is likely that we are constantly "storing up" for the "winter". And "winter" never comes.

As just one example of how animals use fructose to build up their fat reserves, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and build up a lot of body fat--in a very short time. These fat reserves of course are utilized over the long winter's "hibernation" (black bears are not true hibernators as their metabolism does not drop, as would be the case with squirrels, for instance). Now, if we could only figure out how to hibernate...

neanderthin

I don't think fruit is dangerous per se, when eaten in normal amounts. However, a "fruitarian" diet could be problematic. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already been associated with pancreatic cancer and it is likely the fructose that is responsible for the damage. Steve Jobs was a "fruitarian" for many years (he even named his company after his favorite fruit, Apple Inc.) As you likely know, he died of pancreatic cancer. But the vast majority of people would not follow such a restrictive diet (although there was one fellow on MFP who said that he was eating an "all-fruit" diet and that he had lost 70 pounds).

But we aren't in the clear yet, it seems. The S.A.D. includes a LOT of fructose in the form of sugar consumption. It is the greatest exposure to fructose (sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The estimates are that at least 500 calories worth of sugar are eaten per day, both in "sugary" foods and "hidden" in processed food. (For example, do they really need to add so much sugar to Wendy's chili?) Apparently the food processors have long since figured out the addictive quality of sugar and add it as, not only a cheap filler, but as a way of ensuring that we will eat more of that food. There is a lot of leading edge research that implicates sugar and specifically its fructose portion as an "anti-satiety" switch that leads to food addiction in sensitive individuals. Here is a link to the proceedings of a symposium on "food addiction" where sugar consumption was mentioned often in connection with it, along with a host of other serious diseases: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

The problems with these types of studies is that they show correlation, not causation. HFCS is in a lot of products that are highly processed and contain things like red dye #235. What if it's the dye that causes cancer? You just never really know what these studies show without double blind randomized controlled trials. And as far as I know, no one has done that yet with fructose.

No, the work of one of the presenters, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. (he's head of the renal division in the medical center at the University of Colorado) is very interesting. He has demonstrated the process by which high fructose consumption leads to a host of diseases---among them, fatty liver, obesity, Type II diabetes, gouty arthritis, hypertension, renal disease and failure because of its causative role in raising serum uric acid levels. Johnson and his research team has been awarded an NIH grant to study the epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America. What he expects to find is that their habit of drinking soda pop and sugar-sweetened fruit juice, while working in the very hot sugar cane fields (where it is very difficult to stay hydrated) has contributed to the greatly increased level of uric acid in their blood. Under conditions of dehydration the uric acid forms needle-like crystals of uric acid that damages their kidneys. Humans are the only mammals who do not have the enzyme uricase (we have the gene for it but it is non-functional). Because of this, the only way we have of getting rid of excess uric acid is through the kidneys.

Johnson has studied other animals and says that fatty liver and Type II diabetes are normal states for animals--that they will instinctively seek fructose to build up their fat reserves in preparation for scarce food supplies. Among more primitive humans, it is likely that the fruit that is plentiful at the end of summer (in temperate climates) helped them to add fat for the long winters, when they would be forced to switch to a game-based diet along with whatever stored grain and dried fruit they were able to ration out. They would get very lean too, if the winter stretched out unusually long. Today, Western humans have access to food, and especially sugar as a source of fructose, the year round. The effect is likely that we are constantly "storing up" for the "winter". And "winter" never comes.

As just one example of how animals use fructose to build up their fat reserves, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and build up a lot of body fat--in a very short time. These fat reserves of course are utilized over the long winter's "hibernation" (black bears are not true hibernators as their metabolism does not drop, as would be the case with squirrels, for instance). Now, if we could only figure out how to hibernate...

No point in arguing considering your mind is all but made up for you. Which study exactly in humans where these dysfunctions happen would be nice to look at and of course the dosage would be nice to have handy as well.

auddii

I don't think fruit is dangerous per se, when eaten in normal amounts. However, a "fruitarian" diet could be problematic. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already been associated with pancreatic cancer and it is likely the fructose that is responsible for the damage. Steve Jobs was a "fruitarian" for many years (he even named his company after his favorite fruit, Apple Inc.) As you likely know, he died of pancreatic cancer. But the vast majority of people would not follow such a restrictive diet (although there was one fellow on MFP who said that he was eating an "all-fruit" diet and that he had lost 70 pounds).

But we aren't in the clear yet, it seems. The S.A.D. includes a LOT of fructose in the form of sugar consumption. It is the greatest exposure to fructose (sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The estimates are that at least 500 calories worth of sugar are eaten per day, both in "sugary" foods and "hidden" in processed food. (For example, do they really need to add so much sugar to Wendy's chili?) Apparently the food processors have long since figured out the addictive quality of sugar and add it as, not only a cheap filler, but as a way of ensuring that we will eat more of that food. There is a lot of leading edge research that implicates sugar and specifically its fructose portion as an "anti-satiety" switch that leads to food addiction in sensitive individuals. Here is a link to the proceedings of a symposium on "food addiction" where sugar consumption was mentioned often in connection with it, along with a host of other serious diseases: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

The problems with these types of studies is that they show correlation, not causation. HFCS is in a lot of products that are highly processed and contain things like red dye #235. What if it's the dye that causes cancer? You just never really know what these studies show without double blind randomized controlled trials. And as far as I know, no one has done that yet with fructose.

No, the work of one of the presenters, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. (he's head of the renal division in the medical center at the University of Colorado) is very interesting. He has demonstrated the process by which high fructose consumption leads to a host of diseases---among them, fatty liver, obesity, Type II diabetes, gouty arthritis, hypertension, renal disease and failure because of its causative role in raising serum uric acid levels. Johnson and his research team has been awarded an NIH grant to study the epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America. What he expects to find is that their habit of drinking soda pop and sugar-sweetened fruit juice, while working in the very hot sugar cane fields (where it is very difficult to stay hydrated) has contributed to the greatly increased level of uric acid in their blood. Under conditions of dehydration the uric acid forms needle-like crystals of uric acid that damages their kidneys. Humans are the only mammals who do not have the enzyme uricase (we have the gene for it but it is non-functional). Because of this, the only way we have of getting rid of excess uric acid is through the kidneys.

Johnson has studied other animals and says that fatty liver and Type II diabetes are normal states for animals--that they will instinctively seek fructose to build up their fat reserves in preparation for scarce food supplies. Among more primitive humans, it is likely that the fruit that is plentiful at the end of summer (in temperate climates) helped them to add fat for the long winters, when they would be forced to switch to a game-based diet along with whatever stored grain and dried fruit they were able to ration out. They would get very lean too, if the winter stretched out unusually long. Today, Western humans have access to food, and especially sugar as a source of fructose, the year round. The effect is likely that we are constantly "storing up" for the "winter". And "winter" never comes.

As just one example of how animals use fructose to build up their fat reserves, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and build up a lot of body fat--in a very short time. These fat reserves of course are utilized over the long winter's "hibernation" (black bears are not true hibernators as their metabolism does not drop, as would be the case with squirrels, for instance). Now, if we could only figure out how to hibernate...

No point in arguing considering your mind is all but made up for you. Which study exactly in humans where these dysfunctions happen would be nice to look at and of course the dosage would be nice to have handy as well.

Definitely not the one Richard J Johnson just published in Equine Science...

SanteMulberry

YES. Better revisit those "studies". Are you reading studies or published reports from government or health organizations? Ancel Keys research has had the greatest impact on what we are told is healthy, even though he cherry picked his data to show a link between heart disease and saturated fat, when there actually is none. In the past and to this day, any researcher who challenges, or disproves, Keys' fat hypothesis risks disappearing into oblivion. The processed food industry has every interest in keeping us scared of saturated fat and the health/pharmaceutical industry has every interest in keeping us sick.

Is it logical that the food we are adapted to eat for a million years or so would cause disease? If so, why do modern hunter/gatherers show no "diseases of civilization" until they start eating sugar, refined flours, etc.?

Just one example: Inuit had no heart disease, diabetes, cancer, tooth decay, autoimmune disorders until they started eating what the rest of us are eating. Their natural diet is animal based, very high in fat, with a few berries and sea vegetables (depends on region) for a brief period. Ancel Keys, and some other researchers, ignored the research of the Inuit (along with larger populations where the data disproved his hypothesis). Perhaps he thought they weren't quite human or were somehow genetically distinct from the rest of us (they are not).

I tire of arguing this issue repeatedly on MFP. If you really were well read on this subject, you would no longer fear natural fats. The only results of a very high fat diet (quality matters!) are: the resolution/prevention of disease, a healthy body weight, a happy mind, and crazy energy. Being sick, sad, and fat is NOT normal. Check out the research of Dr. Weston Price; that's a good place to start your research.

Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.

But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.

They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.

If it was tropical fruit they were eating, it contains a LOT of fiber and water, diminishing the effect of the fructose. In comparison, the amount of fructose in a serving of chocolate cake (with frosting) is equivalent to at least 10 oranges. A lot depends on what else they were eating and the total amount of food as well.

SanteMulberry

I don't think fruit is dangerous per se, when eaten in normal amounts. However, a "fruitarian" diet could be problematic. High fructose corn syrup consumption has already been associated with pancreatic cancer and it is likely the fructose that is responsible for the damage. Steve Jobs was a "fruitarian" for many years (he even named his company after his favorite fruit, Apple Inc.) As you likely know, he died of pancreatic cancer. But the vast majority of people would not follow such a restrictive diet (although there was one fellow on MFP who said that he was eating an "all-fruit" diet and that he had lost 70 pounds).

But we aren't in the clear yet, it seems. The S.A.D. includes a LOT of fructose in the form of sugar consumption. It is the greatest exposure to fructose (sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The estimates are that at least 500 calories worth of sugar are eaten per day, both in "sugary" foods and "hidden" in processed food. (For example, do they really need to add so much sugar to Wendy's chili?) Apparently the food processors have long since figured out the addictive quality of sugar and add it as, not only a cheap filler, but as a way of ensuring that we will eat more of that food. There is a lot of leading edge research that implicates sugar and specifically its fructose portion as an "anti-satiety" switch that leads to food addiction in sensitive individuals. Here is a link to the proceedings of a symposium on "food addiction" where sugar consumption was mentioned often in connection with it, along with a host of other serious diseases: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

The problems with these types of studies is that they show correlation, not causation. HFCS is in a lot of products that are highly processed and contain things like red dye #235. What if it's the dye that causes cancer? You just never really know what these studies show without double blind randomized controlled trials. And as far as I know, no one has done that yet with fructose.

No, the work of one of the presenters, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. (he's head of the renal division in the medical center at the University of Colorado) is very interesting. He has demonstrated the process by which high fructose consumption leads to a host of diseases---among them, fatty liver, obesity, Type II diabetes, gouty arthritis, hypertension, renal disease and failure because of its causative role in raising serum uric acid levels. Johnson and his research team has been awarded an NIH grant to study the epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America. What he expects to find is that their habit of drinking soda pop and sugar-sweetened fruit juice, while working in the very hot sugar cane fields (where it is very difficult to stay hydrated) has contributed to the greatly increased level of uric acid in their blood. Under conditions of dehydration the uric acid forms needle-like crystals of uric acid that damages their kidneys. Humans are the only mammals who do not have the enzyme uricase (we have the gene for it but it is non-functional). Because of this, the only way we have of getting rid of excess uric acid is through the kidneys.

Johnson has studied other animals and says that fatty liver and Type II diabetes are normal states for animals--that they will instinctively seek fructose to build up their fat reserves in preparation for scarce food supplies. Among more primitive humans, it is likely that the fruit that is plentiful at the end of summer (in temperate climates) helped them to add fat for the long winters, when they would be forced to switch to a game-based diet along with whatever stored grain and dried fruit they were able to ration out. They would get very lean too, if the winter stretched out unusually long. Today, Western humans have access to food, and especially sugar as a source of fructose, the year round. The effect is likely that we are constantly "storing up" for the "winter". And "winter" never comes.

As just one example of how animals use fructose to build up their fat reserves, black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and build up a lot of body fat--in a very short time. These fat reserves of course are utilized over the long winter's "hibernation" (black bears are not true hibernators as their metabolism does not drop, as would be the case with squirrels, for instance). Now, if we could only figure out how to hibernate...

No point in arguing considering your mind is all but made up for you. Which study exactly in humans where these dysfunctions happen would be nice to look at and of course the dosage would be nice to have handy as well.

Johnson has written a number of research papers---some of them are available on the website that I posted. Others are available on line or through the University of Colorado (where he currently is) or the University of Florida (where he is an adjunct professor). The dosage is high in the lab animals, as it has to be to compensate for the fact that they have uricase, where, humans, do not, in fact, have the ability to make uricase.

mistesh

Here's a fascinating website of an M.D. Ph.D. by the name of Ravnskov, who discusses "The Cholesterol Myth" and who believes that dietary fat is extremely important to good health. http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

While waiting at a pharmacy today, I happened to stumble over an article mentioning Uffe Ravnskov in the current issue of the What Doctors Don't Tell You magazine, whose front cover caught my eyes with the words The Myth of 'bad' cholesterol. Lots of interesting stuff, but it occured to me that he and Gary Taubes may subscribe to the same sort of diet.

"Astonishingly, the theory that high-fat foods—such as meat and dairy—raise our cholesterol levels and so cause a buildup of fat in our arteries has never been proven."

A high-fat lie (excerpt; the whole article is not free)
http://www.wddty.com/a-high-fat-lie.html http://wddtysubscribe.com/

I probably noticed the magazine due to having just glanced another article, Statins Reconsidered, in the current issue of another magazine, Pharmaca's Be Well, whose front cover headlined BOOST heart health naturally.

"New research indicates that the primary mechanism by which statins lower risk is not by reducing LDL cholesterol but instead by decreasing systemic inflammation. And the fight against inflammation can be accomplished in other ways as well--through diet, lifestyle and supplement strategies."

A more conventional high-vegetable diet rather than Ravnskov's high-fat one. But good to know that you might be able to get off the atorvastatin drug such as Lipitor given the right diet and exercise. Whatever that diet might be!

Warchortle

Humans were meant to survive. You can live and do well on cutting 1 macro out of the 3, but it's not going to give you the most optimal health you could obtain.

Charlottesometimes23

I believe that high fat diets are only a problem when people consume too much energy overall. When the body consumes too much for its metabolic needs, it has to do something with the excess. It stores it in adipocytes making us overweight and blood lipids can form plaques which harden and block blood vessels. The same thing happens with carbs for that matter. They can also be converted and stored/transported as fats.

However, if we don't consume beyond our metabolic needs, fats will be broken down and metabolised just like any other nutrient. There is a degree of interconnection between the metabolic pathways for the 3 macros so (within reason), a little more of one or the other doesn't really matter.

Those woo woo, pseudoscience moneymaking diet books irritate me no end though. A nicely explained book on metabolic biochemistry would blow them all out of the water IMO.

SanteMulberry

Humans were meant to survive. You can live and do well on cutting 1 macro out of the 3, but it's not going to give you the most optimal health you could obtain.

I would agree. We definitely need the phyto-nutrients afforded by eating vegetables and fruit. However, I think we eat ridiculous amounts of sugar and simple carbs in the S.A.D. and I think it is causing health issues--especially given the sedentary lifestyles of most people in the Western nations.

SanteMulberry

I believe that high fat diets are only a problem when people consume too much energy overall. When the body consumes too much for its metabolic needs, it has to do something with the excess. It stores it in adipocytes making us overweight and blood lipids can form plaques which harden and block blood vessels. The same thing happens with carbs for that matter. They can also be converted and stored/transported as fats.

However, if we don't consume beyond our metabolic needs, fats will be broken down and metabolised just like any other nutrient. There is a degree of interconnection between the metabolic pathways for the 3 macros so (within reason), a little more of one or the other doesn't really matter.

Those woo woo, pseudoscience moneymaking diet books irritate me no end though. A nicely explained book on metabolic biochemistry would blow them all out of the water IMO.

I expect that is why the Paleo and Primal diets are popular. I think people reason that, since modern processed, high sugar/simple carbohydrate diets are bad, then going to a kind of diet that humans had BEFORE all of that came about must be a good idea. I find Paleo to be a bit too restrictive for me as it eliminates dairy and, for me, at least, I find that I feel better on a diet that contains a fair amount of dairy. But that's just me. I think everyone should experiment with a diet that works well in achieving their goals and improving their health, if possible.

SaebraSpirit

Also isn't eating Saturated fat the same as losing fat from your body?
The body fat you have is saturated animal fat and obviously when you burn it, your 'eating' it by converting it to readily available energy in the form of ATP in your Mitochondria....which is the same as consuming it from food.

???

Unless I've just confused myself =P

SanteMulberry

Also isn't eating Saturated fat the same as losing fat from your body?
The body fat you have is saturated animal fat and obviously when you burn it, your 'eating' it by converting it to readily available energy in the form of ATP in your Mitochondria....which is the same as consuming it from food.

???

Unless I've just confused myself =P

Not sure of the science behind it but the Paleo/Primal people claim that we should be getting a majority of our energy requirements from fat and not from carbohydrates, especially sugar and grain. They claim that humans have always burned fat for their energy requirements and that that is healthiest. Haven't really looked into it but I do know that I feel best on a mix of meat, fish and dairy protein, fats (including nuts, olives and avocados) and carbohydrates from vegetables (including starchy ones) and fruits. I wonder if a lot of the weight-loss stalls are not due to an inadequate intake of nutrients of some kind and that the body then goes into "famine" mode in order to conserve energy in trying to ensure survival.