Start the new year out right! Don't fear the tasty fatty meaty goodness!

Acg67 wrote: »

Dragonwolf wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

rprussell2004 wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

Already talked about

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1288924/why-butter-meat-and-cheese-belong-in-a-healthy-diet

I think you misinterpreted "discuss" to mean "mock." Also, that was 8 months ago. Seriously, man, if you've got nothing constructive to say here, go find something useful to do. Crack walnuts with your pecs or something.

The author is a quack and wrote a pseudoscience book, is that not a discussion point?

Another thing the author totally glosses over

http://gibneyonfood.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-big-fat-debate-dont-blame-nutrition.html

And insulin as the culprit? Wonder why she suggests upping protein, which is highly insulinogenic.

Again what is the point of posting links for a pseudoscience book?

Unless it's whey and unless protein is all you're eating (and you're forcing your body to depend on gluconeogenesis), protein has a significantly lower insulinogenic effect than refined carbohydrates and even some complex carbohydrates (whey is on par with white bread for it insulinogenic effect, which makes sense in the intended context of milk). So even replacing carbs with protein, you're still reducing the insulinogenic effect of the food you consume, and for some people, that may be enough to increase body fat metabolism where they were previously having trouble.

I can't speak for the author you linked (especially since the article you linked has little to do with her dietary recommendations, but rather is lamenting how the media twists facts and distorts the actual conclusions of science), but the insulin thing has also been grossly oversimplified (as has just about everything else in nutrition). The issue with insulin isn't so much with insulin itself -- insulin is required for life and it so important that nearly every animal creates it -- but with pathologically high levels of insulin, which is the case of every person with Metabolic Syndrome. A diet with at least adequate fats (as the author you linked noted, 35% of calories from fat) and complex carbs as one's primary carb source, can help stave off or reverse disordered insulin secretion.

Keep in mind, too, that a large number (dare I say most) of the people advocating low carb for purposes of insulin control do not advocate high protein, but "adequate protein" -- that is, enough to meet one's protein needs to retain or build lean mass -- and high fat, which has the least effect on insulin levels.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf

Yep, I've seen that study, and look, as carbohydrate amount in a given food goes up, so does the insulinogenic effect (especially when the carbohydrate is simple or refined). A full 20% difference, in fact, and that's with baked beans counted as a "protein-rich food," despite the bulk of its calories coming from carbohydrates (Google's nutrition sidebar puts "baked beans" at 55g carbs and 14g protein, hardly protein-rich in my book, especially for the purpose of trying to distinguish the effects of the two.) Lentils are arguably not "protein rich," either, with twice the carbs as protein according to uncle Google.

The exception to that trend is "breakfast cereals," where you'll see that the high-fiber cereals are the ones bringing the group mean for the group down.

And again, low carb diets for purposes of controlling insulin are not high protein, but high fat and adequate protein. Protein is a required nutrient to maintain lean mass, and is therefore a "necessary evil" when it comes to reducing insulin through diet. I actually try to follow such a diet, and as such, I avoid whey and similarly known high-insulinogenic protein sources about as much as I avoid starchy or sugary carbs.

stanb888 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

All the longest living populations in the world follow higher carb diets. You won't find any populations known for good health and longevity that get a large portion of their diet from fats.

Opps,

In the blue zone of Sardinia they eat milk, meat, and oil.


P.S. If that's you in the photo. You better lose that extra weight. If you read the studies you will note that being over weight increases your chances of death by 200+%. Extra Weight isn't just fat, muscle weight really tacks the ticker.

Most of them also maintain a slight caloric deficit.

And whole foods, with carbohydrates coming largely from starches, non-starchy vegetables, and some fruit. (Also, rice in the Okinawan diet is a new thing, only since WWII. Prior to that, their main starch was sweet potatoes.)

And low-stress, "slow," but active and mostly outdoor lifestyle, with emphasis on community.

So there's that, too.

eric_sg61 wrote: »

rprussell2004 wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

Acg67 wrote: »

rprussell2004 wrote: »

Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."

Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."

What's your definition?

Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.

Pseudoscience would also include misrepresenting studies and drawing conclusions from said studies that data does not support in order to bolster your hypothesis. See Wheat Belly, Grain Brain, Good Calories Bad Calories etc.

See group means for carb rich foods and cereals vs protein rich foods? Not sure how that confirms the assertion that protein's response isn't nearly that of starches or sugars

Does not the mean include outliers on the extreme end of the spectrum? We don't need to throw them out, but they can misrepresent the bulk of the group. Mean doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture in many circumstances, in situations where there are extreme outliers. A box plot may be a more accurate tool if you are wanting to get a more detailed picture of what is going on. Just because beef's extreme insulinogenic effect is so large, doesn't make those proteins with much lower affects on insulin suddenly have higher effects just because they are proteins, too. Guilt by association is what that logic is and that is not accurate.

Can you give some of these proteins that have much lower effects?

If you were to ask your average low carber about relative insulin responses how many would say pasta is lower than steak or cod

Hah. Leading question FTW! I'ma say NONE. I sure wouldn't have.

To give examples though, from the big list of the insulin indices (p.1269) based on the white bread standard, it looks like, frankly, ALL OF THEM.

Except baked beans, which I don't consider a proper low-carb food anyway. It was purchased at a supermarket and there's no list of ingredients. Googling the nutrition facts of navy beans has them with twice as many grams of carbs as protein.

Indeed, if you eliminate the obvious outlier baked beans, the group average becomes ~40, which is about half of the carb-rich section.

Looking at the graphs on page 1274 as well, the trend lines show that more protein per serving indicate less insulin, and more carbs/sugar mean more insulin.

I note that they didn't test egg WHITES, or refined sugar, or plain butter or lard, for example - i.e. pure samples of each macro type. Whole foods (and even the dreaded PROCESSED foods, boogaboogabooga!) are made up of a host of different ingredients.

I think your label of pseudoscience is misplaced here. By your argument, empirical conclusions are also verboten. Bad or misapplied science, perhaps. Certainly nothing you agree with. But pseudo? No.

And if an author can explain their conclusions, how is this 'misrepresenting,' other than the simple statement that you don't agree with them?

Now, all that said...

I have a host of friends and family - not to mention online cohorts - who confirm the theory that saturated fat is not harmful, and high-carb diets lead directly to T2D.

Bottom line, I don't understand your mental block here. Everything I see from you in any of these threads isn't "Yes, that's interesting BUT..." - instead it's "NO YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND HERE'S WHY!"

All the longest living populations in the world follow higher carb diets. You won't find any populations known for good health and longevity that get a large portion of their diet from fats.

This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.

For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.

stanb888 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.

For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.

You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.

A letter on corpulence.

http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/

No, I meant what I said.

ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?

From personal experience eating more and a variety of fat has been a very successful part in losing and maintaining my weight loss of 55 lbs. for four years. I am continuing to slowly lose & change my body composition by just staying active, making conscious "real food" choices, eating more vegetables, and avoiding added sugar. It's not extremely difficult- just requires planning, discipline, and consistency.
-The first 20 or so pounds I lost were on a lower-fat more "this is what America says is healthy" diet. I did lose weight but it was difficult mentally and I was hungry for most of everyday.

If anyone cares to read more...
After a lot of research on these kinds of studies I decided to end the overthinking madness and work on eating less processed and less "diet"-y. foods.

Instead of eating reduced fat plain yogurt, I eat full-fat. Bacon whenever I want it (which averages out to about twice a month). Instead of eating turkey bacon- which is usually much more processed and doesn't even taste as good- I just eat the real stuff.
Instead of throwing out the bacon grease because it's a "bad fat", I sometimes use it to cook vegetables in and make them more delicious.
Half and half or heavy cream in my coffee instead of skim milk or those crazy chemical artificial creamers.

When you eat like this it tends to be much more satisfying- both physically and emotionally. (Most people who have long-term weight issues have a lot of emotional baggage about food)
Fat is very satiating and pretty hard to overeat. If you eat it along with things like lots of vegetables and protein it's almost impossible to overeat tons of fat.
On the contrary "low-fat" things and "healthy diet" products are way easier to overeat- they leave you not full and then you feel bad emotionally because you feel like no matter how much you eat you're still hungry.

This is just my two cents. And disregarding any food trends, this is how people in most parts of the world eat. Some eat more carbs, some more fats- BUT in most places people don't fear fat, they don't fear food that had a face and the fat that came from it.

Also- I know this post was nonscientific, but my experience may be helpful to some. And I don't eat very high fat or paleo, but I do eat more fat than is recommended by the popular opinion.

baconslave wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stanb888 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.

For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.

You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.

A letter on corpulence.

http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/

No, I meant what I said.

ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?

It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.

While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stanb888 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.

For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.

You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.

A letter on corpulence.

http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/

No, I meant what I said.

ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?

I would tend to agree that the idea that carbs are unhealthy and low carb/high fat is healthier is wrong, at least for the population as a whole. However, I think there's a problem with comparing traditional diets and macro breakdowns with post industrial societies where calorie scarcity isn't an issue and calorie surpluses and lower movement are issues.

Basically, lots of staple starchy carbs, like rice in Asia, grains historically in Europe and the US, corn in the Americas, so on, serve as great sources of calories beyond all else, and also of course provide lots of quick energy. Wonderful if getting enough calories is an issue, and especially if you do lots of activity (walking everywhere, working in the fields, etc.), but arguably not so ideal if you already have plenty of calories and are basically sedentary.

Also, of course, traditional diets also include lots of other carb sources, like fruits and veggies.

What I take from this is that macro breakdown probably isn't really the issue.

baconslave wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stanb888 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.

For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.

You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.

A letter on corpulence.

http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/

No, I meant what I said.

ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?

It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.

While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.

Old Okinawans didn't eat the SAD or Western diet. Their diet and lifestyles and cultures are entirely different. You can't compare apples to oranges other than that they are tree-produced fruits. Every man, woman, and child aren't the same. I know vegetarians who are obese. I know low-carbers who aren't losing much weight. I know people who can eat as many of whatever kind of carb there is and neither develop insulin resistance, nor become obese.

What we should take from the "healthiest populations" is not, everyone in the world should be fine eating as much carbs as they want and that those who restrict carbs and eat higher fat are fad-followers. It's that "What is it about the food combinations and their environment of those peoples that cause them to remain the healthiest when others do not?" And what does this tell us about human physiology? Or about human psychology and cultural mechanisms if that also applies? How do we translate all these successful factors to another culture when the "other" is already ingrained? Why aren't all cultures and all peoples doing what the "healthiest populations" are doing naturally? Is their way the only way?

I'm not going to suddenly become Japanese, in genetics nor culture, and the combinations of higher carbohydrate levels with other macros in my diet hasn't worked well for me much of my life. LCHF works, has enforced portion control and calorie deficit, has improved my health and weight, and I know that I will continue to be successful if I stick with my knew lifestyle long term. And I am certain I will stick with it long term. For me, and others, it IS sustainable. I feel better. I'm happy. I went into it well researched. While some people jump on it as a fad, there are many who do indeed stay with it for life for a variety of reasons. And in those cases it loses it's fad status.

Um, okay. I think you and I are talking apples and oranges, or perhaps apples and groudhogs because that essay you just wrote really seems a completely different topic than what I posted.

baconslave wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stanb888 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

This fact is why I can't buy into the whole LCHF fad as a general rule.

For people with certain diseases or disorders it might be helpful, but medical conditions often require diets that shouldn't be recommended for the general population.

You mean the low fat diets right? Low carb diets have been around for more than 150 years.

A letter on corpulence.

http://www.proteinpower.com/banting/

No, I meant what I said.

ETA: the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?

It suggests that humans are different, each with different genetic markers, environments, and conditions and that there is no perfect diet.

While I believe that is true, I don't see the connection.

Old Okinawans didn't eat the SAD or Western diet. Their diet and lifestyles and cultures are entirely different. You can't compare apples to oranges other than that they are tree-produced fruits. Every man, woman, and child aren't the same. I know vegetarians who are obese. I know low-carbers who aren't losing much weight. I know people who can eat as many of whatever kind of carb there is and neither develop insulin resistance, nor become obese.

What we should take from the "healthiest populations" is not, everyone in the world should be fine eating as much carbs as they want and that those who restrict carbs and eat higher fat are fad-followers. It's that "What is it about the food combinations and their environment of those peoples that cause them to remain the healthiest when others do not?" And what does this tell us about human physiology? Or about human psychology and cultural mechanisms if that also applies? How do we translate all these successful factors to another culture when the "other" is already ingrained? Why aren't all cultures and all peoples doing what the "healthiest populations" are doing naturally? Is their way the only way?

I'm not going to suddenly become Japanese, in genetics nor culture, and the combinations of higher carbohydrate levels with other macros in my diet hasn't worked well for me much of my life. LCHF works, has enforced portion control and calorie deficit, has improved my health and weight, and I know that I will continue to be successful if I stick with my knew lifestyle long term. And I am certain I will stick with it long term. For me, and others, it IS sustainable. I feel better. I'm happy. I went into it well researched. While some people jump on it as a fad, there are many who do indeed stay with it for life for a variety of reasons. And in those cases it loses it's fad status.

Um, okay. I think you and I are talking apples and oranges, or perhaps apples and groudhogs because that essay you just wrote really seems a completely different topic than what I posted.

No. It isn't a different topic. You said:

the fact that low carb diets (which is kind of a meaningless term without definition of "low") have been around so long, yet the healthiest populations are still those that do not eat low carb would suggest something, don't you think?

And I added what I think it suggested. Which was not the same conclusion you were insinuating. I disagreed. Same topic, though. I ASSumed of course that the Okinawans were an example of one such population that you were alluding to. That's one that gets a lot of press. One of many. And none of the others are the same culture/environment as us either. But whatever.

It was all that stuff about SAD diets and sustainability and becoming Japanese that seemed way off topic from my post.