Are high fat diets truly health ?
Options
Replies
-
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.0 -
The question then is what would cause high cholesterol? I can't imagine eating high fat considering my cholesterol is too high. I try to stay under the fat goal, personally.
Have you tried cutting out sugar and lowering your carbs? It worked like a charm to bring my B.P. down (I don't have high cholesterol and I eat eggs everyday).0 -
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.
slightly off topic, but my grandmother was diagnosed with lymphoma in the early 80s. she looked into alternative treatments and found something that worked for her. she ate 1lb of red meat per meal every day for about 12 months i think it was. it could have been longer, i never got that info from her. no radiation therapy and only 1 round of chemo that didn't help. she changed her diet following the chemo. she was in remission for over 20 years.
all her life she covered bread, vegetables, rice, pasta etc in butter, only drank full fat milk and fried everything she could. she died 3 years ago aged 90 with low blood pressure and low cholesterol. my grandfather ate the same foods and is 91 and counting.
look at seniors who lived through the depression, war years and rationing. not many are obese compared to younger generations and they all lived on what we would now consider to be unhealthy diets. butter, pastry, eggs, fried foods. what they didn't regularly eat was a lot of sugar or chemical alternatives to food.
This is also something I considered, but I concluded they were also more active in their daily lives than a lot of today's people are, due to there being a lot less technology around.
in the case of my grandparents, they were up until about 20 years ago. then they naturally started slowing down. my grandmother's weight never got above 155 (fully clothed and wearing men's shoes).
when it comes to exercise, we need to stop making excuses not to get more. but a higher fat diet isn't a reason to do more or less.0 -
Notice quite a few who are doing Paleo and Primal here, have very high fat intakes, some as high as 180g a day, mostly animal fat and coconut oil and must admit, that would worry me, as I have not yet found any recent studies that say a high intake of saturated fat in particular, animal fat, is not bad for health. In fact, only recently, a study showed that more than a 20g of bacon or processed meat a day does cause issues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/07/cancer-risk-processed-meat-study
I am certainly impressed by the healthy whole foods in the diaries of those eating Paleo and Primal, and find it a tempting lifestyle on occasion, but I do wonder about the longterm impact of so much fat, rather than a more balanced approach.
I've been doing a high-fat version of Paleo/Primal/Bulletproof since the first of the year. 67% fat/22% protein/11% carbs is what I came in at this week. I've been low-carb off and on for several years, but this is the best I've felt in a long time.
Yes, and I have seen other people say the same, although some also seem to feel not so good on it. I am trying to find out more, because I have been looking into Paleo and Primal for a time, but have found the idea of going to that degree of fat intake, goes against my 'everything in balance' sort of mindset.0 -
Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.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.
But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.0 -
Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.0 -
They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.
Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.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.
But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.0 -
Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.
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.0 -
They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.
Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.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.
But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.
Which would suggest that it all comes down to sticking to a minimally processed, natural diet, regardless of whether it is high fat or high carb, animal or vegetable, I guess.0 -
I'm reading Dr Joel Fuhrman's book Eat To Live, from what I'm reading the only fat you want to be digesting is from seeds & nuts. From page 181
"Any extracted oil (fat) can promote cancer because consuming even the healthier fats, such as olive oil, in excess adds too many empty calories. Excess caloires have toxic effects, contributing to obesity, premature aging, and cancer."
I was also watching a video clip of Charlotte Gerson (Dr Max Gerson's daughter), she said that the only fat that did not promote tumor grow in cancer patients is flax seed oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Ck9D45OT4 0 -
They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.
Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.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.
But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.
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.0 -
Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.
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...0 -
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.
Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.
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.
0 -
Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.
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.0 -
Nope, no cancer, and they died old generally. Funny how some people look at fruit as dangerous.
They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.
Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.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.
But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.
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.0 -
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.
Personally I don't feel animal saturated fat is unhealthy and can't find any supporting evidence (cause and effect) that it is bad.
Even vegetables can be a problem if they interfere with balancing of individuals nutritional needs.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.
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.
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.
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.0 -
Cancer risk higher among people who eat more processed meat, study finds
"People who eat a lot of processed meat such as ham, bacon, sausages and burgers run a greater risk of premature death and developing conditions such as cancer and heart disease, research shows."
You can get bacon that comes straight from the pig to your table, as well as ham and sausage.0 -
Nope, no cancer, and they died old generally. Funny how some people look at fruit as dangerous.
They consumed lots of fruit, which have both sugar and simple carbs.
Then there's the Kitevans of SEA who consumed 70% carbs............... no heart disease, diabetes or obesity.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.
But I'll bet they ate no sugar or simple carbs either.
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.
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.0 -
Notice quite a few who are doing Paleo and Primal here, have very high fat intakes, some as high as 180g a day, mostly animal fat and coconut oil and must admit, that would worry me, as I have not yet found any recent studies that say a high intake of saturated fat in particular, animal fat, is not bad for health. In fact, only recently, a study showed that more than a 20g of bacon or processed meat a day does cause issues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/07/cancer-risk-processed-meat-study
I am certainly impressed by the healthy whole foods in the diaries of those eating Paleo and Primal, and find it a tempting lifestyle on occasion, but I do wonder about the longterm impact of so much fat, rather than a more balanced approach.
I've been doing a high-fat version of Paleo/Primal/Bulletproof since the first of the year. 67% fat/22% protein/11% carbs is what I came in at this week. I've been low-carb off and on for several years, but this is the best I've felt in a long time.
Yes, and I have seen other people say the same, although some also seem to feel not so good on it. I am trying to find out more, because I have been looking into Paleo and Primal for a time, but have found the idea of going to that degree of fat intake, goes against my 'everything in balance' sort of mindset.
Many in the Paleo community Do Not advocate a high-fat version of the diet. Its just what seems to be working for me now.
My metabolism slowed down after I quit smoking in 2009. Until then, I did great with lean protein, fruit and a few veggies.
Even though I feel great, if your 'everything in balance' mindset worked for me, life would be simpler.
Good luck.0 -
I follow the Keto lifestyle and can personally say that I am no longer Type II Diabetic, my cholesterol, blood pressure and blood glucose #s are all 60% better since October.. I have also lost 45 pounds and feel like a million bucks.. as far as the long term 'issues', I am not a doctor but my nutritionist claims its not a problem, I keep track and have regular appointments so time will tell..0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions