Please tell me how how fat does not cause heart disease!
Lisa1971
Posts: 3,069 Member
I know Atkins and other LC diets work, but I just can't get over the high fat thing! How does this not cause heart disease? Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
0
Replies
-
There is not a correlation between fat consumed and heart disease.
Read this - Taubes article, "What if it's all been a big fat lie?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
"In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.''
There is no correlation.
We have been lied to.0 -
There is not a correlation between fat consumed and heart disease.
Read this - Taubes article, "What if it's all been a big fat lie?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
"In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.''
There is no correlation.
We have been lied to.
Thank you. Ugh. I hate all the negativity about LC diets! I am even skeptical but hey, it works so I will keep at it!0 -
It is soooo overwhelming all the articles out there that tout certain health claims. Same, with all the millions of diets. After awhile, you begin to doubt all that you do and know, thus never following through. I speak from experience and feel your confusion.
HFLC diets are also about choosing quality fats. This site explains the beneficial fats: http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/
There are other sites out there as well. If you were to eat a high carb/ high fat diet, that would lead to heart disease.0 -
Good information above. Also, no matter what kind of diet you are on, make sure you are getting enough potassium. I take a potassium supplement daily.
Also, the documentary Fathead has a lot of interesting information regarding this issue. Here's a clip relevant to your question.
http://youtu.be/v8WA5wcaHp4 0 -
My own experience gives the lie to the "fat causes heart disease" lie.
In Nov, 2011 my cholesterol was sky high although I was avoiding fat and eating green veggies and grains. Here's my numbers then:
Cholesterol - 283
HDL - 24 (horribly low)
TriGlycerides - 292
Chol/HDL ratio - 11.8 (insanely high, very high risk of heart disease)
In June, 2012 I started following a diet based on Gary Taubes work. Fat is 60-70 percent ofmy daily food intake. I had another physical recently. Here's the results:
Cholesterol - 223
HDL - 41 (bottom of healthy range)
TriGlycerides - 228
Chol/HDL ratio - 5.4 (moderate, almost within no heart disease risk range)
I've also lost at least 30 lbs during that time. Not sure exactly how much since I haven't touched a scale in a couple weeks.
If dietary fat = high cholesterol and heart disease risk this shouldn't have happened.0 -
In addition to what's been said above, the most recent studies have been pointing to increased glucose (sugar, coming from carbohydrates) as the culprit for high cholesterol and heart disease. Makes sense, don't it? I mean, in the last 30 years, people have been on high-carb, low-fat diets. And the incidence of heart disease has skyrocketed. Yet in other countries (mainly traditional cultures that do not consume processed foods) where they have high-fat diets, but consume minimal, if any, starch/carbs/sugar, heart disease is nearly unheard of.
So aside from my own experience (being much healthier and happier while consuming more *quality* fat), there are multiple studies showing that what mainstream medicine and society as a whole has been touting over the last 30 years, is false. Unfortunately, mainstream medicine/nutrition/fitness doesn't want to back-pedal and admit they were wrong, so they continue to push the low-fat, high-carb diet to everyone.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Also, low carb doesn't automatically mean high fat. I eat low carb enough to stay in ketosis (under 80 carbs a day)...however, my diet is also pretty low fat.
Careful with that. That means that you're probably high protein, which CAN have health consequences. If you're going low-carb, it's better to be high-fat than high-protein.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Also, low carb doesn't automatically mean high fat. I eat low carb enough to stay in ketosis (under 80 carbs a day)...however, my diet is also pretty low fat.
Careful with that. That means that you're probably high protein, which CAN have health consequences. If you're going low-carb, it's better to be high-fat than high-protein.
I totally agree for someone who is following traditional low carb / keto.
I think the key is that they identified eating up to 80 carbs per day. So that sounds more like moderate carb, low fat, moderate protein (rather than low carb, low fat, high protein).
From what I've read, it is uncommon for someone to eat low fat, up to 80 carbs per day, and maintain ketosis. If trying to achieve ketosis and weight loss, I don't think this would be the recommended approach on achieving that. Perhaps this is more of an "advanced low-carb regimen". YMMV0 -
Also, low carb doesn't automatically mean high fat. I eat low carb enough to stay in ketosis (under 80 carbs a day)...however, my diet is also pretty low fat.
Careful with that. That means that you're probably high protein, which CAN have health consequences. If you're going low-carb, it's better to be high-fat than high-protein.
Disagree there.
You're free to disagree, and it's your body, but I'd recommend reading The Art and Science of Low Carb Living in order to make a qualified decision.0 -
I totally agree for someone who is following traditional low carb / keto.
I think the key is that they identified eating up to 80 carbs per day. So that sounds more like moderate carb, low fat, moderate protein (rather than low carb, low fat, high protein).
From what I've read, it is uncommon for someone to eat low fat, up to 80 carbs per day, and maintain ketosis. If trying to achieve ketosis and weight loss, I don't think this would be the recommended approach on achieving that. Perhaps this is more of an "advanced low-carb regimen". YMMV
I don't know about uncommon. Once someone is in ketosis, most people are able to raise above 25/30/50. Some go up to 100 before they're out. Plus, we're talking net carbs, which I'm not sure shell was talking about. Also, I'd consider it "low" in comparison to the typical diet of over 50% of calories coming from carbs.
ETA: If someone can manage moderate across the board, that's, of course, fine. This is where the issue of adequate calories often arises, though. My point remains that if something is going to be high, it's better to be fat than protein.0 -
I do know that with Atkins, for instance, once start your transition out of phase 1 your carbs slowly start in increase and fat starts to lower. Dr. Atkins indicates that happens naturally. BUT, you have to follow his plan for adding carbs back in to be a success. You will end up out of ketosis by the time hit phase 3.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm in a mild state of ketosis and have been since the beginning. It's not the strict levels like Atkins, etc....but enough to not have my body fall out of ketosis.
Just curious. What is a "mild state of ketosis"?
Are you doing blood ketone testing?0 -
Thanks the info. I'm following a medically approved plan so I'm A OK. I am eating low carb (60-80 carbs per day), low fat and higher levels of protein. The plan is specifically designed to be higher protein in order to lessen the degree of lean muscle loss. My doc and I are on the same page...and researched it quite a bit before jumping in.
Well, that showed my presumptive butt! :flowerforyou:
ETA a more appropriate smiley.0 -
I thought Ketosis was a thing that you are either "in" or "not in" and that there are not varying degrees of it. It was also my understanding that the reason that the Keto sticks range in darkness of purple has to do with your hydration level or other factors and also that other factors can affect the accuracy which is why some advise not to rely on such. I've never tried the blood ketone testing as mentioned above, but I imagine it would be most reliable.
I just did a quick search on reddit and found a relevant discussion about this if anyone is interested.
http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/164s06/keto_sticks_and_degrees_of_ketosis/
edit: I guess spell check doesn't recognize ketosis, ketone or keto as being real words.0 -
It's true that ketostix aren't an ideal measure, as they only measure one possible sign of ketosis and they are influenced by hydration. But regarding being "in" or "not in", and mild states, it's certainly fair to quantify ketosis. The benefits of nutritional ketosis begin at a blood level of 0.5 millimolar (mM) and the benefits improve up to 3.0 mM. One could definitely say that the 0.5 range would be a "mild" state and the 3.0 range would be much deeper. (Source: The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living) Because there is a difference in benefits depending on the "depth", I've been debating whether to spring for a device to measure my level by blood if and when I switch from my current diet* to a ketogenic diet* (which sort of is my plan for my more active upcoming summer).
*diet = the kind of foor that a person, animal, or community habitually eats0 -
Thanks for that information. I really do feel that as much as I research about this diet, there are always new things to learn.
Something else I wanted to mention that's relevant to the discussion above regarding protein vs. fat was something I read in the reddit keto FAQ
"Is more protein than fat OK?
One of the importance of keeping a proper ratio is ensuring that your protein levels do not exceed that of fat in calories, not weight. The reason for this is that protein in excessive levels act very closely to carbohydrates. They are broken down and converted into glucose, spiking your blood sugar and causing insulin to secrete and patrol."
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq#wiki_is_more_protein_than_fat_ok.3F
Also, someone questioned this and a good discussion followed - http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/19o0qh/is_more_protein_than_fat_ok_from_keto_faq/0 -
Can I just confirm - the values on MFP food diary for protein, carbs and fat are grams right - not calories. So as fat grams have more calories than protein grams it doesn't necessarily matter if the total grams of protein are over your total grams of fat provided that you calculate up the calorific values of them and then compare?
Does that even make sense? It did in my head? Guess what I mean is you can't just compare the two numbers shown on your diary.0 -
Can I just confirm - the values on MFP food diary for protein, carbs and fat are grams right - not calories. So as fat grams have more calories than protein grams it doesn't necessarily matter if the total grams of protein are over your total grams of fat provided that you calculate up the calorific values of them and then compare?
Does that even make sense? It did in my head? Guess what I mean is you can't just compare the two numbers shown on your diary.
For people that use an iPhone or iPad, you actually have a pie-chart on the MFP app that shows the % of Calories from Fat, Protein and Carbs. This makes it very easy. To do this manually:
%Fat = Fat Grams * 9 / Total Calories
%Protein = Protein Grams * 4 / Total Calories
%Carbs = Carb Grams * 4 / Total Calories0 -
I can post beyond the science of it to personal experience. When I spent 6 months eating low carb before, this is what happened to my blood work (real numbers)
Before low carb After low carb
Triglycerides 240 131
Cholesterol 199 165
LDL (Bad cholesterol) 122 109
HDL (Good choleserol) 29 30
Not perfect numbers, but I'll take it! :-)
Tom0 -
I can post beyond the science of it to personal experience. When I spent 6 months eating low carb before, this is what happened to my blood work (real numbers)
Before low carb After low carb
Triglycerides 240 131
Cholesterol 199 165
LDL (Bad cholesterol) 122 109
HDL (Good choleserol) 29 30
Not perfect numbers, but I'll take it! :-)
Tom
Nice!!!0 -
I don't know about the Ketostix that you all are using, but I know for midwifery, when we look for ketonuria in a patient (much different situation in a pregnant woman, can lead to fetal malnourishment in some women), we use sticks that have multiple items it's testing for (others are glucose, proteinuria, density/hydration, pH, presence of blood, and a few others).
The bottle includes a chart where you can see the varying degrees of ketones in the urine, and you can compare and then get a reading on postive or negative. Some of those things we test for have varying degrees, like "Trace", "+1", "+2", etc. So, for example, if a mama has "Trace" ketones, we'd consider it mild and negligible. But if it's a +4, we'd have her share a food diary, see if she's eating enough, ask if there's extreme morning sickness (hyperemesis gravidarium), or some other cause.
But for the purposes HERE, ketosis is what is desired (for some people), so they would want a higher number than lower/trace.0 -
There is not a correlation between fat consumed and heart disease.
Read this - Taubes article, "What if it's all been a big fat lie?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
"In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.''
There is no correlation.
We have been lied to.
Yes, I believe she is correct. We've been lied to.
Read the book: Why we get fat and what to do about it. ~ By Gary Taubes0 -
Yet another study that you May want to read
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/0 -
Yet another study that you May want to read
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/which-diet-works/
It's important to realize that the "diet" that he calls "Atkins" in this article is more like the induction phase of Atkins, and no one stays on it forever.
I'm just starting to read DANDR, and I'm certain that Dr. A would agree that, as you add carbs back into the diet, it's important to add the non-processed, low-glycemic carbs. Of the 3 diets he mentioned, I'm picturing my Atkins journey looking a lot more like what he calls "Atkins" in the beginning, but right in the middle between "Atkins" and the Low Glycemic Option that was tested in the end.
Just a thought :-)
Tom0 -
It's important to realize that the "diet" that he calls "Atkins" in this article is more like the induction phase of Atkins, and no one stays on it forever.
Well, yes. It's more of a standard ketogenic or HFLC diet. But I suppose that more people can relate to the term Atkins than keto, so he had to make a choice. I applaude him on the use of quotes to show a bit of a falsehood.0
