Good news for people who like eating fat!
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All the subjects had metabolic syndrome. Is it surprising that increasing carbs was bad for them?
I wonder why they did not do it on individuals with no metabolic syndrome?
Also, they said they changed their diets every three weeks, but I thought it takes four to six to see any appreciable change from dietary or marco changes…
Interesting, but I think the design has some flaws...0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Well, HERE'S the problem:This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center.
Follow the money, sheeple! No wonder the findings supported LCHF!
while it is a concern that those who sponsored the research can benefit from it does not automatically mean the research is faulty. Porsche and BMW spend millions on advertising and that does not make their claims of "great car" any less true.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All the subjects had metabolic syndrome. Is it surprising that increasing carbs was bad for them?
I wonder why they did not do it on individuals with no metabolic syndrome?
Also, they said they changed their diets every three weeks, but I thought it takes four to six to see any appreciable change from dietary or marco changes…
Interesting, but I think the design has some flaws...
Because it was a study on folks with metabolic syndrome? What's that in the U.S. 1 in 5? 1 in 3?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All the subjects had metabolic syndrome. Is it surprising that increasing carbs was bad for them?
I wonder why they did not do it on individuals with no metabolic syndrome?
Also, they said they changed their diets every three weeks, but I thought it takes four to six to see any appreciable change from dietary or marco changes…
Interesting, but I think the design has some flaws...
Because it was a study on folks with metabolic syndrome? What's that in the U.S. 1 in 5? 1 in 3?
You make too much sense.0 -
Agreed. I'd actually prefer if they used more than 16 subjects, too. I always have a problem with studies that use such a statistically small group of people.LolBroScience wrote: »I wonder what sort of results would come about if conducted on those who don't have metabolic disorders.
These results will help future researchers get funding for more adequate studies. They all have to start small. Nobody wants to spend money to test a thousand subjects unless they have some idea of whether the result is going to be worthwhile.0 -
Why the War on Fat Was a Huge Mistake
Top 8 Reasons Not to Fear Saturated Fat
Articles with citations.
Authority Nutrition is not an authority on nutrition. They are clearly of the low carb mentality and they cite (cherry pick) studies which support their stance. They promote that 'a low carb diet is the best option for people who want to lose weight, optimize health and lower the risk of disease.' It should exclude sugar, gluten, artificial sweeteners and processed foods.
For most people, this type of restrictive plan is unnecessary.
0 -
Science is weird, new studies don't often actually disprove old theories, mostly it's about providing a clearer picture.
I'm currently doing a degree in Health Sciences and right now I'm reading a book about heart diseases, and in it they say specifically a 'high fat' diet is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease BUT they use it interchangeably with 'high calorie', which is a better description because obviously it's not fat that makes you fat but excess calories, it just happens fat is particularly calorie dense.
The book is only from 2011 so it just goes to show demonising fat isn't an old-fashioned way of thinking.0 -
What a load of rot!
The fat you eat is the fat you wear!0 -
Eating fat doesn't make you fat, any more than eating bread. Everything breaks down to portion control.0
-
Moderation is key - too much fat can give you colon cancer0
-
awesome news!
*starts putting chunks of lard in my water like I always dream to do*0 -
-
Moderation is key - too much fat can give you colon cancer
Whoah. I'ma need a citation for that one. I could throw out "too much fat gives you brain cancer and botflies" too, eh?
And from what I've read, yes, ingested fat is immediately stored. The problem arises when it is never burned again. Eating low-carb (from a CICO sense) forces your stored fat to become your fuel.
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
Not to mention the whole pancreatic failure/insulin resistance thing. Oh, and new studies involving Alzheimer's Disease, starting to label it as a Type-3 diabetes - inarguably caused by excess starches and sugars.
So, cloogsy71 et al, If you are able to moderate your overall intake and keep your body in order, that's fine. Huzzah. But to crap on new discoveries simply because they're different from the old ones...
That's how science WORKS.
0 -
JenniDaisy wrote: »Science is weird, new studies don't often actually disprove old theories, mostly it's about providing a clearer picture.
I'm currently doing a degree in Health Sciences and right now I'm reading a book about heart diseases, and in it they say specifically a 'high fat' diet is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease BUT they use it interchangeably with 'high calorie', which is a better description because obviously it's not fat that makes you fat but excess calories, it just happens fat is particularly calorie dense.
The book is only from 2011 so it just goes to show demonising fat isn't an old-fashioned way of thinking.
Unfortunately, demonising fat is based on a discredited study which relied on cherry-picked data to support its findings, and became such a "given" that it's not surprising that it's taken so long to be turned around.0 -
The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.0
-
BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »The insulin/carbohydrate argument is not accurate. Your body has an strong insulin response to protein as well.
And this will become an issue when people pound down the protein the way they do sugar and starch. Happily, this is already on the no-no list because it'll destroy your kidneys.
What are you more likely to snack on several times a day - a supersize coke and bag of chips, or a pound of beef sticks?
What's at the base of the food pyramid and the proposed major component of most meals?
What do they add to "LOW FAT!!!" foods to make them palatable?
Sure, insulin also shuttles protein to its destination - all that means is that a diabetic is extra-screwed when their pancreas goes belly up (hurr).
What I was responding to was your quote:
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
My point is that eating low carb does not eliminate an insulin response. If all you ate was fat, only then the insulin would be significantly reduced. Insulin is not the enemy. It has been demonized by many who now have faded into the woodwork.
Type one diabetics do have a tough time of it. While it is much easier to control the BG swings by eating a low carb diet, I fear that they may not be benefiting from the other food components due to the lack of insulin needed to assimilate them.-1 -
BlackTimber wrote: »What I was responding to was your quote:
Eating low-carb (from a physiological sense) also (a) stops excess insulin from keeping leptin from telling you you're full and should, Idunno, maybe STOP EATING NOW, and (b) keeps your blood sugar levels smooth so you don't have spikes and crashes.
My point is that eating low carb does not eliminate an insulin response. If all you ate was fat, only then the insulin would be significantly reduced. Insulin is not the enemy. It has been demonized by many who now have faded into the woodwork.
Type one diabetics do have a tough time of it. While it is much easier to control the BG swings by eating a low carb diet, I fear that they may not be benefiting from the other food components due to the lack of insulin needed to assimilate them.
Oh, sure - that makes sense. And I think on that point we actually agree.
My quote was about EXCESS insulin, not any and all insulin. It's the overproduction that causes a problem, and I will stand by my position that excess carbs leads to excess insulin leads to resistance. I have to say it's been very well documented.
I also don't think it's THE ENEMY, as many do. It's a tool, a hormone, absolutely necessary in a healthy body (as per your T1 diabetic point and their having to inject it or DIE).
The situation these days, however, is that the widespread standard and recommended diet - not to mention the hyperbole about having to eat low fat, and the resulting available "healthy" food - tends to burn it out, which is all kinds of bad.0 -
warblerofdoom wrote: »So eating chicken skin is OK now? I was taught to remove the skin.. it's a habit now.
If people only learn this, the world will be a better place.
(From a lover of roasted chicken with bones and skin!)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions