A couple interesting takes on a high-fat diet...

RockstarWilson
RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
edited November 21 in Food and Nutrition
Here are a couple articles that give some perspective to the idea that it could be beneficial based on historical and modern empirical evidence. Both articles demonstrate comparisons between traditional Northwest diet and the typical American diet. Pay attention to what the Discover article says about protein consumption, and read the comments on the other one. The author of the latter goes in depth with his responses.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox. From 2004

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/inuit-lessons-from-arctic.html?m=1 from 2008

I thought saturated fats were free on this diet, but the Inuit have a different take on why this is not the case. I will have to research further. This was an intriguing read.

Edit: found a more recent article from the UK Independent summarizing the historical world-wide battle on saturated fat, high fat, processed foods, sugar, and grain intakes in relation to obesity, disease and government promotion. Regardless of how you feel about carbohydrates, this is worth reading. Connecting ideas, the Inuit food are wild game on a very different diet than the diet of our farmed animals, so it ties together in a very global way. Read on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-science-of-saturated-fat-a-big-fat-surprise-about-nutrition-9692121.html

Have a great day!

Replies

  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    Thanks, the independent article nicely summarizes how eating fat was inaccurately demonized 50 years ago and shifted our diet to eating a dangerously unhealthy level of carbohydrates.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    I'm seeing this info from more and more sources now. Thanks. That was a good summary.
  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    edited July 2015
    I prrsonally think it is some good insight. Maybe the culprit for all this disease and obesity is because we eat soo...muuuch...processed food. And who is making all the processed food? Fast food restaurants. Giant conglomerates. Now, it would be impossible for the entire first world population to revert back to Hunter-gatherer style of eating. The Inuit hold on to it because no other civilization wants to live that far up. The seals eat fish. The moose and elk eat wild, untreated plants. The fish eat other fish. It is all natural. And they are buff because they have to be. We are obese because we allow our body no other option. If energy cannot be expelled, it must be saved.

    Its very simple in its context. Eat food with less alteration from nature, and with less manmade or man-implanted ingredients.
  • dennshah01
    dennshah01 Posts: 34 Member
    Great post. Thanks!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2015
    The actual shift in our diet on a macro level is pretty modest and well within the broad range of fat and carb percentages common in healthy traditional diets (which are all over the place).

    Between 1971 and 2000, men went from 42.4 to 49% carbs, and 37 to 33% fat, as reported. Women went from 45.4 to 51.6% carbs and 36 to 33% fat. Calories from both increased. Many people think this is actually overstated, as people tend to understand the fat they eat as they believe they aren't supposed to be eating it.

    (Yet they do, in larger calorie amounts than before the war on fat started.)

    Focusing on macros rather than individual choices within the macros (and total amounts of those) seems misplaced.

    Similarly, people ate fast food and drank soda when I was a kid, they just ate much less of it as a percentage of their overall diets.
  • JoeWillinghamTX
    JoeWillinghamTX Posts: 1 Member
    edited July 2015
    I've been following the Keto lifestyle 80/15/5% fat/protein/carbs (I don't consider it a diet since I'm eating food love and don't have cravings for stuff I shouldn't eat) for 5 weeks now. I'm using a supplement that puts therapeutic key tones into my body so that I don't have to follow such a strict diet. Getting into ketosis from diet alone is pretty extreme. I don't think I would have the willpower to do it without the supplement. My energy levels are up, inflammation issues are down, and I've lost 13 pounds so far!
    [links removed by MFP Mod]
  • DeeJayShank
    DeeJayShank Posts: 92 Member
    When it comes to health, Quantity > Quality. Lose weight eating only twinkies and your health markers will still improve considerably. Extra weight is the elephant in the room, and should be everyone's #1 health priority.

    Once you get a healthy weight, you can focus on macros/micros. But if you are overweight, then focusing heavily on macros/micros is a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It's misplaced priorities.
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    When it comes to health, Quantity > Quality. Lose weight eating only twinkies and your health markers will still improve considerably. Extra weight is the elephant in the room, and should be everyone's #1 health priority.

    Once you get a healthy weight, you can focus on macros/micros. But if you are overweight, then focusing heavily on macros/micros is a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It's misplaced priorities.

    Yup.

    I think the only reason why "processed" (?) food seems bad is because it tends to be very tasty (compelling to eat) and calorie dense. Which means if you eat it to satiety you will be consuming a butt-load of calories.

    But when you eat "natural" (?) foods they are often much less calorie dense so you can eat them to satiety and not have consumed very many calories. There are exceptions, of course. A completely natural half-rack of ribs is still over 1000 calories.
  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    edited July 2015
    maillemaker wrote: »
    When it comes to health, Quantity > Quality. Lose weight eating only twinkies and your health markers will still improve considerably. Extra weight is the elephant in the room, and should be everyone's #1 health priority.

    Once you get a healthy weight, you can focus on macros/micros. But if you are overweight, then focusing heavily on macros/micros is a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It's misplaced priorities.

    Yup.

    I think the only reason why "processed" (?) food seems bad is because it tends to be very tasty (compelling to eat) and calorie dense. Which means if you eat it to satiety you will be consuming a butt-load of calories.

    But when you eat "natural" (?) foods they are often much less calorie dense so you can eat them to satiety and not have consumed very many calories. There are exceptions, of course. A completely natural half-rack of ribs is still over 1000 calories.

    Indeed, and you know what? It is engineered that way. It has to, or people won't eat it. The calories come from that laundry list of crap you cant even pronounce that comprise the pasta, the sauce mix, the bread or dough or what-have-you. But In the end, it is about one thing. And I know this is steering the conversation a bit, so I won't go too far, but processed foods are about one thing: tastiest, most calorie rich foods for the cheapest cost. The cheaper the cost, the higher the profits, and there are "scientists" that get paid to test out new "ingredients" in a lab somewhere. Just think of the whole Jello debacle.

    As far as health...yes, I also believe that weight triggers a ton more health concerns than what one eats, no pun intended. I have a comment to a patron last night that if his new way of eating is what has lost him his first 15 lbs in a month (I inferred he has a lot to lose), then he should not be worried about a high protein diet. Just go with what works. If you develop some sort of disease or disorder based on what you eat when you are healthy, it will surely be more manageable than if you are at a morbid weight and have a slew of problems. The body is extremely regenerative, if you let it be. It can cure itself from diabetes, for cryin out loud. How cool is that? But yes, the "chairs on the Titanic" have much more proportionate mass when put on a tugboat. Get the tugboat first. Great analogy! :-)
  • DeeJayShank
    DeeJayShank Posts: 92 Member
    RockstarWilson wrote: »
    maillemaker wrote: »
    When it comes to health, Quantity > Quality. Lose weight eating only twinkies and your health markers will still improve considerably. Extra weight is the elephant in the room, and should be everyone's #1 health priority.

    Once you get a healthy weight, you can focus on macros/micros. But if you are overweight, then focusing heavily on macros/micros is a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It's misplaced priorities.

    Yup.

    I think the only reason why "processed" (?) food seems bad is because it tends to be very tasty (compelling to eat) and calorie dense. Which means if you eat it to satiety you will be consuming a butt-load of calories.

    But when you eat "natural" (?) foods they are often much less calorie dense so you can eat them to satiety and not have consumed very many calories. There are exceptions, of course. A completely natural half-rack of ribs is still over 1000 calories.

    Indeed, and you know what? It is engineered that way. It has to, or people won't eat it. The calories come from that laundry list of crap you cant even pronounce that comprise the pasta, the sauce mix, the bread or dough or what-have-you. But In the end, it is about one thing. And I know this is steering the conversation a bit, so I won't go too far, but processed foods are about one thing: tastiest, most calorie rich foods for the cheapest cost. The cheaper the cost, the higher the profits, and there are "scientists" that get paid to test out new "ingredients" in a lab somewhere. Just think of the whole Jello debacle.

    As far as health...yes, I also believe that weight triggers a ton more health concerns than what one eats, no pun intended. I have a comment to a patron last night that if his new way of eating is what has lost him his first 15 lbs in a month (I inferred he has a lot to lose), then he should not be worried about a high protein diet. Just go with what works. If you develop some sort of disease or disorder based on what you eat when you are healthy, it will surely be more manageable than if you are at a morbid weight and have a slew of problems. The body is extremely regenerative, if you let it be. It can cure itself from diabetes, for cryin out loud. How cool is that? But yes, the "chairs on the Titanic" have much more proportionate mass when put on a tugboat. Get the tugboat first. Great analogy! :-)

    Kudos given to you both, because as you've both pointed out, what we typically call "healthier" foods are going to fill you up more. That is the biggest role that chicken breast and brown rice play in my diet. They are fillers that satiate hunger without overloading the system with calories. I could achieve similar results by eating just pizza, but would not feel full doing so.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories