Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Options
Replies
-
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Genetics has a greater impact on many types of cancer and many health problems. Poor diets, sedentary lifestyles and inactivity has the biggest impact. That is clear. What happens when you take evolving countries and introduce and abudance of western styles diets which average 3000 calories, weight gain occurs. Its very simple why weight gain has been so prevalent and we dont need some convoluted reason for why obesity is crazy.
And if you look at what all the healthiest nations in the world have in common... moderate calories levels and highly active.
Bottom line: the hormonal effects of food matter. When you eat whole foods, you eat less calories without trying. The western diet is characterized first and primarily by processed food, not just "average 3000 calories." Western diets can easily grow to 3000 calories because the types of food promote over-consumption. Additionally, the types of food in and of themselves, irrespective of calories, also promote disease.
I like how you make things up
10 -
Yes. Because obesity is measured by BMI by the AMA. By BMI standards, I'm obese. So somehow I have a disease now?KetoneKaren wrote: »
Obesity isn't a disease though. It's directly a calorie in/out issue. It may be a condition due to the health issue. Granted hormonal issues really can complicate it.
I have a niece who has a thyroid disease. She's obese. We don't blame her for it, due to her condition, but she can make better choices when she eats. And I'll be the first to say that it is tough, especially when your family has parties every weekend and food is a big part of family get togethers.
People that are obese, can lose weight, but it take much more effort and discipline due to the complications of physical movement and likely hormonal issues. It's not impossible or there wouldn't be any success stories.
Just curious - does this mean you disagree with the American Medical Association who has defined obesity as a disease since 2013?
Karen
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Yes. Because obesity is measured by BMI by the AMA. By BMI standards, I'm obese. So somehow I have a disease now?KetoneKaren wrote: »
Obesity isn't a disease though. It's directly a calorie in/out issue. It may be a condition due to the health issue. Granted hormonal issues really can complicate it.
I have a niece who has a thyroid disease. She's obese. We don't blame her for it, due to her condition, but she can make better choices when she eats. And I'll be the first to say that it is tough, especially when your family has parties every weekend and food is a big part of family get togethers.
People that are obese, can lose weight, but it take much more effort and discipline due to the complications of physical movement and likely hormonal issues. It's not impossible or there wouldn't be any success stories.
Just curious - does this mean you disagree with the American Medical Association who has defined obesity as a disease since 2013?
Karen
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're always the last to know...1 -
Lol, then how do explain genetics? You have people that eat crap all the time that aren't dying off and then people who have genetics issues and eat organic/whole foods and have health issues."Crisseyda wrote: »Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Lol, then how do explain genetics? You have people that eat crap all the time that aren't dying off and then people who have genetics issues and eat organic/whole foods and have health issues."Crisseyda wrote: »Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is probably true.. We had a family friend who lived with his mother for the first 50-60 years of his life. She cooked everything from scratch, they lived off the land and only ate organic, absolutely nothing processed, canned or packaged.
Long story short, his mum died, he got married to a woman who had no idea how to cook (nor did he), and they they lived off processed garbage, pretty much the polar opposite of how he lived before. Anyways, 5 years later he was riddled with cancer and died pretty quickly. We often wonder if it was the drastic change of food/living or would he have died anyway??? I guess we will never know.. But most people say it was the lifestyle change that did him in.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
Lol, then how do explain genetics? You have people that eat crap all the time that aren't dying off and then people who have genetics issues and eat organic/whole foods and have health issues."Crisseyda wrote: »Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is probably true.. We had a family friend who lived with his mother for the first 50-60 years of his life. She cooked everything from scratch, they lived off the land and only ate organic, absolutely nothing processed, canned or packaged.
Long story short, his mum died, he got married to a woman who had no idea how to cook (nor did he), and they they lived off processed garbage, pretty much the polar opposite of how he lived before. Anyways, 5 years later he was riddled with cancer and died pretty quickly. We often wonder if it was the drastic change of food/living or would he have died anyway??? I guess we will never know.. But most people say it was the lifestyle change that did him in.
It was probably the marriage, lol.
The pointi made last page or so was similar. My great uncle recently passed away at 97 years old. He was 50 lbs over weight and ate crap all the time. Loved his tasty cakes, sausages and so many other processed meats. But as a WWII vet, he didnt care. Its a pretty similar story throughout my family. Upper 80s is generally the low point.2 -
Haha you could be right lemon. He did always resent her for not cooking him decent meals and looking after him like mummy did! Blech a grown who was so reliant on his mum and who refused to do anything for himself
Could his system have gone onto some kind of shock due to a radical diet change, and just flat out rejected it?1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Haha you could be right lemon. He did always resent her for not cooking him decent meals and looking after him like mummy did! Blech a grown who was so reliant on his mum and who refused to do anything for himself
Could his system have gone onto some kind of shock due to a radical diet change, and just flat out rejected it?
Many types of cancer brew for a few years in the pre-cancer state, then for a few more before they start showing symptoms. Chances are it started when he was with his mother.
Genetics trumps lifestyle. When you think of cardiovascular disease you usually imagine someone eating a very bad diet and being very inactive. Yes, those things contribute but genetics has the strongest say in the matter. My maternal grandfather lived in a true farming village all of his life where 100% of the food is home-produced and never a dull day. Taking care of a large produce and livestock farm takes a lot of physical work, so he wasn't a slob who sits and does nothing all day but eat junk food, yet he had a stroke at a relatively young age and diet a few years later of a heart attack. My grandmother, on the other hand, still lives there in her 90s. My aunt appears to have inherited my grandfather's genetics and is battling high blood pressure.
On the other, a friend of the family has a mother who is a smoker and weighs 400 pounds on a short frame. She is in her late 80s still kicking it strong. Other than a potential knee replacement which the doctor is reluctant to recommend because her case is not that bad, she is fine. Some people are just lucky.
The problem is that it's hard to know what cards you were exactly really dealt, so doing your best to minimize the risks is all you could do.2 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Genetics has a greater impact on many types of cancer and many health problems. Poor diets, sedentary lifestyles and inactivity has the biggest impact. That is clear. What happens when you take evolving countries and introduce and abudance of western styles diets which average 3000 calories, weight gain occurs. Its very simple why weight gain has been so prevalent and we dont need some convoluted reason for why obesity is crazy.
And if you look at what all the healthiest nations in the world have in common... moderate calories levels and highly active.
Bottom line: the hormonal effects of food matter. When you eat whole foods, you eat less calories without trying. The western diet is characterized first and primarily by processed food, not just "average 3000 calories." Western diets can easily grow to 3000 calories because the types of food promote over-consumption. Additionally, the types of food in and of themselves, irrespective of calories, also promote disease.
Do you have actual proof of that? Or is that just your opinion? Because I have never seen one food linked to specific disease. And there are many examples of people eating bad foods and improving their health and all the associated markers (like the twinkie diet).
Also, eating whole foods alone doesn't force you to eat less calories. Because I don't know about you, but there are countless threads about people eating clean and not losing weight.
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."2 -
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."
You fail to discuss context and dosage.
1. Alcohol is bad in excess, but has been proven to support cardiovascular health (red wine) in low dosages.
2. This i agree with.
3. Very old study you presented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571451
4. And there are countless amounts of articles that debunk everything that Dr. Lustig puts out.7 -
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."
You fail to discuss context and dosage.
1. Alcohol is bad in excess, but has been proven to support cardiovascular health (red wine) in low dosages.
2. This i agree with.
3. Very old study you presented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571451
4. And there are countless amounts of articles that debunk everything that Dr. Lustig puts out.
1. Alcohol is a carcinogen, hepatotoxin, neurotoxin, among others things. The benefits of wine have nothing to do with the alcohol. Alcochol is harmful. period. You'd actually get more benefits from the reversatrol if you bathe in the stuff. Despite what minimal links studies find for small segments of the population (postmensopausal women and men over 40), no health organization anywhere will recommend people to pick up drinking for heart health.
2. good deal
3. That's probably because it's old news, and everyone knows it by now (although nothing has really changed in the cheap processed food supply). Even WebMD states the obvious:
Unfortunately, we eat way too much omega-6, which is found in the corn oil and vegetable oils used in so much American food. Too much omega 6 can raise your blood pressure, lead to blood clots that can cause heart attack and stroke, and cause your body to retain water.
source: http://www.webmd.com/women/features/benefits-of-essential-fats-and-oils
4. Share any one of them by a reputable source (not an astroturfing blog). Dr Lustig is just one of many voices talking about the evidence against sugar. Is Harvard Medical school reputable enough for you? The problem with sugar is the effects of excess fructose, which has the unique ability to instigate fatty liver disease and insulin resistance in the liver, which in turn raises insulin levels and promotes obesity, diabetes, and related metabolic syndrome.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, is probably Dr. Lustig's English doppelganger, although he started with a focus on heart health instead of childhood obesity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhhMpxErhRY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgegpakWYVE 1 -
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."
You fail to discuss context and dosage.
1. Alcohol is bad in excess, but has been proven to support cardiovascular health (red wine) in low dosages.
2. This i agree with.
3. Very old study you presented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571451
4. And there are countless amounts of articles that debunk everything that Dr. Lustig puts out.
1. Alcohol is a carcinogen, hepatotoxin, neurotoxin, among others things. The benefits of wine have nothing to do with the alcohol. Alcochol is harmful. period. You'd actually get more benefits from the reversatrol if you bathe in the stuff. Despite what minimal links studies find for small segments of the population (postmensopausal women and men over 40), no health organization anywhere will recommend people to pick up drinking for heart health.
2. good deal
3. That's probably because it's old news, and everyone knows it by now (although nothing has really changed in the cheap processed food supply). Even WebMD states the obvious:
Unfortunately, we eat way too much omega-6, which is found in the corn oil and vegetable oils used in so much American food. Too much omega 6 can raise your blood pressure, lead to blood clots that can cause heart attack and stroke, and cause your body to retain water.
source: http://www.webmd.com/women/features/benefits-of-essential-fats-and-oils
4. Share any one of them by a reputable source (not an astroturfing blog). Dr Lustig is just one of many voices talking about the evidence against sugar. Is Harvard Medical school reputable enough for you? The problem with sugar is the effects of excess fructose, which has the unique ability to instigate fatty liver disease and insulin resistance in the liver, which in turn raises insulin levels and promotes obesity, diabetes, and related metabolic syndrome.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, is probably Dr. Lustig's English doppelganger, although he started with a focus on heart health instead of childhood obesity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhhMpxErhRYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgegpakWYVE
1. Again, you are missing dosage and context. here is an article from the mayo clinic.
"Red wine's potential heart-healthy benefits look promising. Those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol, including red wine, seem to have a lower risk of heart disease. However, more research is needed before we know whether red wine is better for your heart than are other forms of alcohol, such as beer or spirits."
It' when you take that wine, or other spirit, and drink it in excess.
2. yea
3. Old news. You originally supported your position with an article from 2002. I showed you one from 2015 from the NIH and your response is off of WebMD? That is just as credible as wikipedia.
4. I laugh before lustig himself is fairly overweight and even he only suggest limiting sugars from processed foods. But to reinforces that, below is the abstract from your article.
"experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of sugar you get from sugar-sweetened drinks, pastries, desserts, breakfast cereals, and more, mainly to avoid gaining weight. The same strategy could also protect your liver and your arteries."
So essentially, give up highly processed foods and stop drinking a ton of calories.. not exactly rocket science.
Harvard will also tell you to cut back on saturated fats? Are they reputable enough to go against all the other claims, or do you only use sources when they support your position? Because I full recognize the limiting added sugars is a great step in increasing health and a good way to cut calories. I also recognize, that you shouldn't uncontrollably eat SFA and when you do, also eat foods high in MUFA and PUFA. I know this may be shocking, but when I work with people, the first thing I tell them is to stop drinking calories (outside of protein shakes if they struggle to get adequate protein). And then I tell them to decrease added sugars, but if you feel the urge, fit in a desert or treat only if they hit their other targets and it doesn't exceed 10% of their total calories.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/butter-is-not-back-limiting-saturated-fat-still-best-for-heart-health/
"They estimated that replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats with equivalent energy intake from either polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, or carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with 25%, 15%, and 9% lower risk of CHD, respectively. On the other hand, swapping 5% of saturated fat calories for the same amount of refined carbohydrates and sugars did not change CHD risk."
10 -
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."
You fail to discuss context and dosage.
1. Alcohol is bad in excess, but has been proven to support cardiovascular health (red wine) in low dosages.
2. This i agree with.
3. Very old study you presented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571451
4. And there are countless amounts of articles that debunk everything that Dr. Lustig puts out.
1. Alcohol is a carcinogen, hepatotoxin, neurotoxin, among others things. The benefits of wine have nothing to do with the alcohol. Alcochol is harmful. period. You'd actually get more benefits from the reversatrol if you bathe in the stuff. Despite what minimal links studies find for small segments of the population (postmensopausal women and men over 40), no health organization anywhere will recommend people to pick up drinking for heart health.
2. good deal
3. That's probably because it's old news, and everyone knows it by now (although nothing has really changed in the cheap processed food supply). Even WebMD states the obvious:
Unfortunately, we eat way too much omega-6, which is found in the corn oil and vegetable oils used in so much American food. Too much omega 6 can raise your blood pressure, lead to blood clots that can cause heart attack and stroke, and cause your body to retain water.
source: http://www.webmd.com/women/features/benefits-of-essential-fats-and-oils
4. Share any one of them by a reputable source (not an astroturfing blog). Dr Lustig is just one of many voices talking about the evidence against sugar. Is Harvard Medical school reputable enough for you? The problem with sugar is the effects of excess fructose, which has the unique ability to instigate fatty liver disease and insulin resistance in the liver, which in turn raises insulin levels and promotes obesity, diabetes, and related metabolic syndrome.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, is probably Dr. Lustig's English doppelganger, although he started with a focus on heart health instead of childhood obesity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhhMpxErhRYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgegpakWYVE
1. Again, you are missing dosage and context. here is an article from the mayo clinic.
"Red wine's potential heart-healthy benefits look promising. Those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol, including red wine, seem to have a lower risk of heart disease. However, more research is needed before we know whether red wine is better for your heart than are other forms of alcohol, such as beer or spirits."
It' when you take that wine, or other spirit, and drink it in excess.
2. yea
3. Old news. You originally supported your position with an article from 2002. I showed you one from 2015 from the NIH and your response is off of WebMD? That is just as credible as wikipedia.
4. I laugh before lustig himself is fairly overweight and even he only suggest limiting sugars from processed foods. But to reinforces that, below is the abstract from your article.
"experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of sugar you get from sugar-sweetened drinks, pastries, desserts, breakfast cereals, and more, mainly to avoid gaining weight. The same strategy could also protect your liver and your arteries."
So essentially, give up highly processed foods and stop drinking a ton of calories.. not exactly rocket science.
Harvard will also tell you to cut back on saturated fats? Are they reputable enough to go against all the other claims, or do you only use sources when they support your position? Because I full recognize the limiting added sugars is a great step in increasing health and a good way to cut calories. I also recognize, that you shouldn't uncontrollably eat SFA and when you do, also eat foods high in MUFA and PUFA. I know this may be shocking, but when I work with people, the first thing I tell them is to stop drinking calories (outside of protein shakes if they struggle to get adequate protein). And then I tell them to decrease added sugars, but if you feel the urge, fit in a desert or treat only if they hit their other targets and it doesn't exceed 10% of their total calories.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/butter-is-not-back-limiting-saturated-fat-still-best-for-heart-health/
"They estimated that replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats with equivalent energy intake from either polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, or carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with 25%, 15%, and 9% lower risk of CHD, respectively. On the other hand, swapping 5% of saturated fat calories for the same amount of refined carbohydrates and sugars did not change CHD risk."
1. Just below the quote you chose:
"Neither the American Heart Association nor the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend that you start drinking alcohol just to prevent heart disease. Alcohol can be addictive and can cause or worsen other health problems.
Drinking too much alcohol increases your risk of high blood pressure, high triglycerides, liver damage, obesity, certain types of cancer, accidents and other problems. In addition, drinking too much alcohol regularly can cause weakened heart muscle (cardiomyopathy), leading to symptoms of heart failure in some people. If you have heart failure or a weak heart, you should avoid alcohol completely."
2. Your review looked at increasing or decreasing omega 6 and replacing with another macronutrient and they didn't find anything--so that magically means it's not a problem? The real issue is balancing omega 6s with omega 3s. All of them are essential. If you don't believe that excess Omega 6 is a problem, I'm afraid you're just not in touch with the evidence.
Dietary n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: from biochemistry to clinical implications in cardiovascular prevention.
This review highlights the important cardioprotective effect of n-3 in the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death due to arrhythmias, but suggests caution to recommend dietary supplementation of PUFAs to the general population, without considering, at the individual level, the intake of total energy and fats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19022225
Joseph Hibbeln, a researcher at the National Institute of Health (NIH) who has published several papers on n-3 and n-6 intakes, didn’t mince words when he commented on the rising intake of n-6 in a recent paper:
The increases in world LA [lineoleic acid] consumption over the past century may be considered a very large uncontrolled experiment that may have contributed to increased societal burdens of aggression, depression and cardiovascular mortality.
Sources: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/6/S1483.abstract
http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-omega-3-is-making-us-sick/
Saturated fat is a natural component of a multitude of nutrient dense foods which humans have been consuming abundantly for as long as we've existed. No, I don't feel the overall data support it as a harmful nutrient. Excess of Omega 6 is completely new to our diet, and clearly pro-inflammatory.
4. I agree to the same, limiting added sugars, not sugar from fruit, dairy, etc. The problem is dosage dependent; however, overdose on fructose is extremely common with the SAD--too much sugar!1 -
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."
You fail to discuss context and dosage.
1. Alcohol is bad in excess, but has been proven to support cardiovascular health (red wine) in low dosages.
2. This i agree with.
3. Very old study you presented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571451
4. And there are countless amounts of articles that debunk everything that Dr. Lustig puts out.
1. Alcohol is a carcinogen, hepatotoxin, neurotoxin, among others things. The benefits of wine have nothing to do with the alcohol. Alcochol is harmful. period. You'd actually get more benefits from the reversatrol if you bathe in the stuff. Despite what minimal links studies find for small segments of the population (postmensopausal women and men over 40), no health organization anywhere will recommend people to pick up drinking for heart health.
2. good deal
3. That's probably because it's old news, and everyone knows it by now (although nothing has really changed in the cheap processed food supply). Even WebMD states the obvious:
Unfortunately, we eat way too much omega-6, which is found in the corn oil and vegetable oils used in so much American food. Too much omega 6 can raise your blood pressure, lead to blood clots that can cause heart attack and stroke, and cause your body to retain water.
source: http://www.webmd.com/women/features/benefits-of-essential-fats-and-oils
4. Share any one of them by a reputable source (not an astroturfing blog). Dr Lustig is just one of many voices talking about the evidence against sugar. Is Harvard Medical school reputable enough for you? The problem with sugar is the effects of excess fructose, which has the unique ability to instigate fatty liver disease and insulin resistance in the liver, which in turn raises insulin levels and promotes obesity, diabetes, and related metabolic syndrome.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, is probably Dr. Lustig's English doppelganger, although he started with a focus on heart health instead of childhood obesity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhhMpxErhRYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgegpakWYVE
1. Again, you are missing dosage and context. here is an article from the mayo clinic.
"Red wine's potential heart-healthy benefits look promising. Those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol, including red wine, seem to have a lower risk of heart disease. However, more research is needed before we know whether red wine is better for your heart than are other forms of alcohol, such as beer or spirits."
It' when you take that wine, or other spirit, and drink it in excess.
2. yea
3. Old news. You originally supported your position with an article from 2002. I showed you one from 2015 from the NIH and your response is off of WebMD? That is just as credible as wikipedia.
4. I laugh before lustig himself is fairly overweight and even he only suggest limiting sugars from processed foods. But to reinforces that, below is the abstract from your article.
"experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of sugar you get from sugar-sweetened drinks, pastries, desserts, breakfast cereals, and more, mainly to avoid gaining weight. The same strategy could also protect your liver and your arteries."
So essentially, give up highly processed foods and stop drinking a ton of calories.. not exactly rocket science.
Harvard will also tell you to cut back on saturated fats? Are they reputable enough to go against all the other claims, or do you only use sources when they support your position? Because I full recognize the limiting added sugars is a great step in increasing health and a good way to cut calories. I also recognize, that you shouldn't uncontrollably eat SFA and when you do, also eat foods high in MUFA and PUFA. I know this may be shocking, but when I work with people, the first thing I tell them is to stop drinking calories (outside of protein shakes if they struggle to get adequate protein). And then I tell them to decrease added sugars, but if you feel the urge, fit in a desert or treat only if they hit their other targets and it doesn't exceed 10% of their total calories.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/butter-is-not-back-limiting-saturated-fat-still-best-for-heart-health/
"They estimated that replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats with equivalent energy intake from either polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, or carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with 25%, 15%, and 9% lower risk of CHD, respectively. On the other hand, swapping 5% of saturated fat calories for the same amount of refined carbohydrates and sugars did not change CHD risk."
1. Just below the quote you chose:
"Neither the American Heart Association nor the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend that you start drinking alcohol just to prevent heart disease. Alcohol can be addictive and can cause or worsen other health problems.
Drinking too much alcohol increases your risk of high blood pressure, high triglycerides, liver damage, obesity, certain types of cancer, accidents and other problems. In addition, drinking too much alcohol regularly can cause weakened heart muscle (cardiomyopathy), leading to symptoms of heart failure in some people. If you have heart failure or a weak heart, you should avoid alcohol completely."
2. Your review looked at increasing or decreasing omega 6 and replacing with another macronutrient and they didn't find anything--so that magically means it's not a problem? The real issue is balancing omega 6s with omega 3s. All of them are essential. If you don't believe that excess Omega 6 is a problem, I'm afraid you're just not in touch with the evidence.
Dietary n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: from biochemistry to clinical implications in cardiovascular prevention.
This review highlights the important cardioprotective effect of n-3 in the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death due to arrhythmias, but suggests caution to recommend dietary supplementation of PUFAs to the general population, without considering, at the individual level, the intake of total energy and fats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19022225
Joseph Hibbeln, a researcher at the National Institute of Health (NIH) who has published several papers on n-3 and n-6 intakes, didn’t mince words when he commented on the rising intake of n-6 in a recent paper:
The increases in world LA [lineoleic acid] consumption over the past century may be considered a very large uncontrolled experiment that may have contributed to increased societal burdens of aggression, depression and cardiovascular mortality.
Sources: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/6/S1483.abstract
http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-omega-3-is-making-us-sick/
Saturated fat is a natural component of a multitude of nutrient dense foods which humans have been consuming abundantly for as long as we've existed. No, I don't feel the overall data support it as a harmful nutrient. Excess of Omega 6 is completely new to our diet, and clearly pro-inflammatory.
4. I agree to the same, limiting added sugars, not sugar from fruit, dairy, etc. The problem is dosage dependent; however, overdose on fructose is extremely common with the SAD--too much sugar!
1. Still missing the point on context and dosages. You suggested 0 consumption. These suggest 1 drink for females and 2 for males.
2. So just like all things, it's about dosages. Unbalanced omega 3 and omega 6 is going to be bad, just like excessive SFA and added sugar? Why, it takes away from other important nutrients.
3. The evidence currently sits that SFA should be limited. Its less likely to have an impact when consumed from natural sources, but it at best, it's neutral. Which is unlike unsaturated fats and plant based foods which have been proven to lower cholesterol and improve health markers.5 -
@psulemon
Hmmm, foods linked to specific diseases irrespective of calories. I'm sure I can think of a few:
1. alcohol
2. trans fats
3. extreme excess of omega 6 (plus too little omega 3s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909
4. sugar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746440.html
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/10/136676/obese-childrens-health-rapidly-improves-sugar-reduction-unrelated-calories
"Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases in children, including high cholesterol and blood pressure in as little as 10 days"
The danger of consuming these foods has almost nothing to do with "excess calories."
You fail to discuss context and dosage.
1. Alcohol is bad in excess, but has been proven to support cardiovascular health (red wine) in low dosages.
2. This i agree with.
3. Very old study you presented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571451
4. And there are countless amounts of articles that debunk everything that Dr. Lustig puts out.
1. Alcohol is a carcinogen, hepatotoxin, neurotoxin, among others things. The benefits of wine have nothing to do with the alcohol. Alcochol is harmful. period. You'd actually get more benefits from the reversatrol if you bathe in the stuff. Despite what minimal links studies find for small segments of the population (postmensopausal women and men over 40), no health organization anywhere will recommend people to pick up drinking for heart health.
2. good deal
3. That's probably because it's old news, and everyone knows it by now (although nothing has really changed in the cheap processed food supply). Even WebMD states the obvious:
Unfortunately, we eat way too much omega-6, which is found in the corn oil and vegetable oils used in so much American food. Too much omega 6 can raise your blood pressure, lead to blood clots that can cause heart attack and stroke, and cause your body to retain water.
source: http://www.webmd.com/women/features/benefits-of-essential-fats-and-oils
4. Share any one of them by a reputable source (not an astroturfing blog). Dr Lustig is just one of many voices talking about the evidence against sugar. Is Harvard Medical school reputable enough for you? The problem with sugar is the effects of excess fructose, which has the unique ability to instigate fatty liver disease and insulin resistance in the liver, which in turn raises insulin levels and promotes obesity, diabetes, and related metabolic syndrome.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, is probably Dr. Lustig's English doppelganger, although he started with a focus on heart health instead of childhood obesity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhhMpxErhRYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgegpakWYVE
1. Again, you are missing dosage and context. here is an article from the mayo clinic.
"Red wine's potential heart-healthy benefits look promising. Those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol, including red wine, seem to have a lower risk of heart disease. However, more research is needed before we know whether red wine is better for your heart than are other forms of alcohol, such as beer or spirits."
It' when you take that wine, or other spirit, and drink it in excess.
2. yea
3. Old news. You originally supported your position with an article from 2002. I showed you one from 2015 from the NIH and your response is off of WebMD? That is just as credible as wikipedia.
4. I laugh before lustig himself is fairly overweight and even he only suggest limiting sugars from processed foods. But to reinforces that, below is the abstract from your article.
"experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them.
Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of sugar you get from sugar-sweetened drinks, pastries, desserts, breakfast cereals, and more, mainly to avoid gaining weight. The same strategy could also protect your liver and your arteries."
So essentially, give up highly processed foods and stop drinking a ton of calories.. not exactly rocket science.
Harvard will also tell you to cut back on saturated fats? Are they reputable enough to go against all the other claims, or do you only use sources when they support your position? Because I full recognize the limiting added sugars is a great step in increasing health and a good way to cut calories. I also recognize, that you shouldn't uncontrollably eat SFA and when you do, also eat foods high in MUFA and PUFA. I know this may be shocking, but when I work with people, the first thing I tell them is to stop drinking calories (outside of protein shakes if they struggle to get adequate protein). And then I tell them to decrease added sugars, but if you feel the urge, fit in a desert or treat only if they hit their other targets and it doesn't exceed 10% of their total calories.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/butter-is-not-back-limiting-saturated-fat-still-best-for-heart-health/
"They estimated that replacing 5% of energy intake from saturated fats with equivalent energy intake from either polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, or carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with 25%, 15%, and 9% lower risk of CHD, respectively. On the other hand, swapping 5% of saturated fat calories for the same amount of refined carbohydrates and sugars did not change CHD risk."
1. Just below the quote you chose:
"Neither the American Heart Association nor the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend that you start drinking alcohol just to prevent heart disease. Alcohol can be addictive and can cause or worsen other health problems.
Drinking too much alcohol increases your risk of high blood pressure, high triglycerides, liver damage, obesity, certain types of cancer, accidents and other problems. In addition, drinking too much alcohol regularly can cause weakened heart muscle (cardiomyopathy), leading to symptoms of heart failure in some people. If you have heart failure or a weak heart, you should avoid alcohol completely."
2. Your review looked at increasing or decreasing omega 6 and replacing with another macronutrient and they didn't find anything--so that magically means it's not a problem? The real issue is balancing omega 6s with omega 3s. All of them are essential. If you don't believe that excess Omega 6 is a problem, I'm afraid you're just not in touch with the evidence.
Dietary n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: from biochemistry to clinical implications in cardiovascular prevention.
This review highlights the important cardioprotective effect of n-3 in the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death due to arrhythmias, but suggests caution to recommend dietary supplementation of PUFAs to the general population, without considering, at the individual level, the intake of total energy and fats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19022225
Joseph Hibbeln, a researcher at the National Institute of Health (NIH) who has published several papers on n-3 and n-6 intakes, didn’t mince words when he commented on the rising intake of n-6 in a recent paper:
The increases in world LA [lineoleic acid] consumption over the past century may be considered a very large uncontrolled experiment that may have contributed to increased societal burdens of aggression, depression and cardiovascular mortality.
Sources: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/6/S1483.abstract
http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-omega-3-is-making-us-sick/
Saturated fat is a natural component of a multitude of nutrient dense foods which humans have been consuming abundantly for as long as we've existed. No, I don't feel the overall data support it as a harmful nutrient. Excess of Omega 6 is completely new to our diet, and clearly pro-inflammatory.
4. I agree to the same, limiting added sugars, not sugar from fruit, dairy, etc. The problem is dosage dependent; however, overdose on fructose is extremely common with the SAD--too much sugar!
1. Still missing the point on context and dosages. You suggested 0 consumption. These suggest 1 drink for females and 2 for males.
2. So just like all things, it's about dosages. Unbalanced omega 3 and omega 6 is going to be bad, just like excessive SFA and added sugar? Why, it takes away from other important nutrients.
3. The evidence currently sits that SFA should be limited. Its less likely to have an impact when consumed from natural sources, but it at best, it's neutral. Which is unlike unsaturated fats and plant based foods which have been proven to lower cholesterol and improve health markers.
If you want to replace your SF with PUFA, go right ahead. Just be careful you source it from real food, like nuts or fish. And don't use them for cooking, as they oxidize very easily, creating toxic by-products. SF is much more stable for heating: coconut oil, lard, or butter.
Choosing processed vegetable oil as your "heart healthy" PUFAs might lower your cholesterol numbers--as the LDL it creates is easily oxidized (which means it can no longer be measured by a lipid panel), becomes a foreign particle in the bloodstream, and get consumed by white bloods cells into a fatty plaque in your arteries--but actually increase your risk of death, as this recent BMJ study shows. http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.1 -
Or if you wanna keep the saturated fat...
https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/study-doubling-saturated-fat-in-the-diet-does-not-increase-saturated-fat-in-blood/1 -
Or if you wanna keep the saturated fat...
https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/study-doubling-saturated-fat-in-the-diet-does-not-increase-saturated-fat-in-blood/Volek and colleagues recruited 16 adults for the study, all of whom had metabolic syndrome, defined as the presence of at least three of five factors that increase the risk for heart disease and diabetes (excess belly fat, elevated blood pressure, low “good” cholesterol, insulin resistance or glucose intolerance, and high triglycerides).
....
The study does not address what happens to palmitoleic acid levels when high carbs are combined with a diet high in saturated fat. Instead, Volek hoped to identify the carb-intake point at which participants began to store fat.
“That turned out to be highly variable,” he said. “Everyone showed increased palmitoleic acid levels as carbs increased, but values varied widely between individuals, especially at the highest carb intake. This is consistent with the idea that people vary widely in their tolerance to carbohydrates.”
....
“There is no magical carb level, no cookie-cutter approach to diet, that works for everyone,” he said. “There’s a lot of interest in personalized nutrition, and using a dynamically changing biomarker could provide some index as to how the body is processing carbohydrates.”
This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center.3 -
Or if you wanna keep the saturated fat...
https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/study-doubling-saturated-fat-in-the-diet-does-not-increase-saturated-fat-in-blood/Volek and colleagues recruited 16 adults for the study, all of whom had metabolic syndrome, defined as the presence of at least three of five factors that increase the risk for heart disease and diabetes (excess belly fat, elevated blood pressure, low “good” cholesterol, insulin resistance or glucose intolerance, and high triglycerides).
....
The study does not address what happens to palmitoleic acid levels when high carbs are combined with a diet high in saturated fat. Instead, Volek hoped to identify the carb-intake point at which participants began to store fat.
“That turned out to be highly variable,” he said. “Everyone showed increased palmitoleic acid levels as carbs increased, but values varied widely between individuals, especially at the highest carb intake. This is consistent with the idea that people vary widely in their tolerance to carbohydrates.”
....
“There is no magical carb level, no cookie-cutter approach to diet, that works for everyone,” he said. “There’s a lot of interest in personalized nutrition, and using a dynamically changing biomarker could provide some index as to how the body is processing carbohydrates.”
This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center.
It's funny how nothing you chose to highlight had anything to do with saturated fat. What is your agenda exactly?1 -
Or if you wanna keep the saturated fat...
https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/study-doubling-saturated-fat-in-the-diet-does-not-increase-saturated-fat-in-blood/Volek and colleagues recruited 16 adults for the study, all of whom had metabolic syndrome, defined as the presence of at least three of five factors that increase the risk for heart disease and diabetes (excess belly fat, elevated blood pressure, low “good” cholesterol, insulin resistance or glucose intolerance, and high triglycerides).
....
The study does not address what happens to palmitoleic acid levels when high carbs are combined with a diet high in saturated fat. Instead, Volek hoped to identify the carb-intake point at which participants began to store fat.
“That turned out to be highly variable,” he said. “Everyone showed increased palmitoleic acid levels as carbs increased, but values varied widely between individuals, especially at the highest carb intake. This is consistent with the idea that people vary widely in their tolerance to carbohydrates.”
....
“There is no magical carb level, no cookie-cutter approach to diet, that works for everyone,” he said. “There’s a lot of interest in personalized nutrition, and using a dynamically changing biomarker could provide some index as to how the body is processing carbohydrates.”
This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center.
It's funny how nothing you chose to highlight had anything to do with saturated fat. What is your agenda exactly?
My guess? To expose your lack of knowledge. She and others are doing a good job of that.13
https://youtu.be/liIlW-ovx0Y
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions