Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What a lot of us here already know: "Fast" carbs don't make you fat!
Options
Replies
-
Fortification.kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
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 -
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
11 -
The body doesn't distinguish whether a food is fortified or not, so really wouldn't the biggest concern be what you're really getting from a food when you compare it with something similar?kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
Rice doesn't have vit C, but lots of white rice is fortified, so maybe it was added.
I like brown rice better (I'm not that into rice anyway in that I think it works well with some food and is fine but I could easily live without it, but think if one must choose brown is tastier), but I don't think either is really better from a nutritional perspective. One can likely get nutrients more easily from fortified white rice than brown, and it's not like I find brown rice super filling -- it's way more about the protein and veg one eats with the rice.
That's what I was thinking too - but if that is the case then I think that showing a nutritional comparison between a fortified and non-fortified food item is a bit disingenuous. I mean it probably doesn't matter but it would make me question the rest of the comparatives as well (if I was interested in choosing rice with the best nutritional profile which personally I am not).
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
5 -
The body doesn't distinguish whether a food is fortified or not, so really wouldn't the biggest concern be what you're really getting from a food when you compare it with something similar?kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
Rice doesn't have vit C, but lots of white rice is fortified, so maybe it was added.
I like brown rice better (I'm not that into rice anyway in that I think it works well with some food and is fine but I could easily live without it, but think if one must choose brown is tastier), but I don't think either is really better from a nutritional perspective. One can likely get nutrients more easily from fortified white rice than brown, and it's not like I find brown rice super filling -- it's way more about the protein and veg one eats with the rice.
That's what I was thinking too - but if that is the case then I think that showing a nutritional comparison between a fortified and non-fortified food item is a bit disingenuous. I mean it probably doesn't matter but it would make me question the rest of the comparatives as well (if I was interested in choosing rice with the best nutritional profile which personally I am not).
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
My point is that any food can be high in nutrients if you add them to it. I would think the whole point of comparing two foods side by side would be to do a comparison of the nutrients that are inherent in those foods.
3 -
Well since most processed foods end up stripping nutrients, you MAY NOT find any process foods that aren't fortified. So the search for those could be in vain. But again, I think the whole point of nutrients in food is what is offered to you whether fortified or not.
The body doesn't distinguish whether a food is fortified or not, so really wouldn't the biggest concern be what you're really getting from a food when you compare it with something similar?kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
Rice doesn't have vit C, but lots of white rice is fortified, so maybe it was added.
I like brown rice better (I'm not that into rice anyway in that I think it works well with some food and is fine but I could easily live without it, but think if one must choose brown is tastier), but I don't think either is really better from a nutritional perspective. One can likely get nutrients more easily from fortified white rice than brown, and it's not like I find brown rice super filling -- it's way more about the protein and veg one eats with the rice.
That's what I was thinking too - but if that is the case then I think that showing a nutritional comparison between a fortified and non-fortified food item is a bit disingenuous. I mean it probably doesn't matter but it would make me question the rest of the comparatives as well (if I was interested in choosing rice with the best nutritional profile which personally I am not).
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
My point is that any food can be high in nutrients if you add them to it. I would think the whole point of comparing two foods side by side would be to do a comparison of the nutrients that are inherent in those foods.
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
2 -
Well since most processed foods end up stripping nutrients, you MAY NOT find any process foods that aren't fortified. So the search for those could be in vain. But again, I think the whole point of nutrients in food is what is offered to you whether fortified or not.
The body doesn't distinguish whether a food is fortified or not, so really wouldn't the biggest concern be what you're really getting from a food when you compare it with something similar?kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
Rice doesn't have vit C, but lots of white rice is fortified, so maybe it was added.
I like brown rice better (I'm not that into rice anyway in that I think it works well with some food and is fine but I could easily live without it, but think if one must choose brown is tastier), but I don't think either is really better from a nutritional perspective. One can likely get nutrients more easily from fortified white rice than brown, and it's not like I find brown rice super filling -- it's way more about the protein and veg one eats with the rice.
That's what I was thinking too - but if that is the case then I think that showing a nutritional comparison between a fortified and non-fortified food item is a bit disingenuous. I mean it probably doesn't matter but it would make me question the rest of the comparatives as well (if I was interested in choosing rice with the best nutritional profile which personally I am not).
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
My point is that any food can be high in nutrients if you add them to it. I would think the whole point of comparing two foods side by side would be to do a comparison of the nutrients that are inherent in those foods.
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
OK - so if I buy protein fortified almond milk then I can claim that almond milk is higher protein than soy milk?
I mean sure maybe most white rice is fortified - that wasn't really the point of the post - it was a comparison between the two of them which to me would imply a comparison between their inherent nutritional profile. I mean the claim was that white rice is fairly comparable nutritionally to brown rice, if they have to add nutrients into because they "end up stripping" them out, then that claim is disingenuous, imo.
But honestly I don't care to argue about it, it was just an observation that I made looking at the comparative which made me curious, I honestly don't care that much about it to keep discussing it.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
The Harvard nutrition people have never been pro eating lots of refined carbs or added sugar. It's just that they don't think that's the only thing that matters for a healthy diet.
Also, no fast carbs (like at least one person seems to be arguing in this thread) and don't overeat highly refined carbs and added sugars are different things.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
The Harvard nutrition people have never been pro eating lots of refined carbs or added sugar. It's just that they don't think that's the only thing that matters for a healthy diet.
Also, no fast carbs (like at least one person seems to be arguing in this thread) and don't overeat highly refined carbs and added sugars are different things.
I agree.2 -
Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.8 -
neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
The meta-analysis of the studies that was referred to in the article I posted where about "fast" carbs and weight loss/overall weight, not overall health. While I view weight management as part of the larger overall picture of health, that's not all of it, and I don't believe it's what this article is claiming, either. I personally tend to view my food and activity choices as more for my overall health and not weight management, and try to limited more refined carbs and added sugar. I feel better with less sugar overall and often don't feel good after I eat a carb-heavy meal (of any kind, really). However, I still track my foods to make sure I'm not overeating, as it's possible to do with any kind of food.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
Yeah, I got the "Blue Zones Kitchen" cookbook from my library. It was Nicoya, and it (among all the other places listed) were very heavily plant-based recipes. I haven't looked at all of the recipes, but it seems they're all plant-based with no animal products (a.k.a., carb-heavy). Granted, this cookbook could be written by someone who is very much in favor of plant-based diets and it's possible true Blue Zone diets contain more animal products. In fact, I have a hard time believing no animal products are included in Blue Zone diets. Do they contain less than the traditional Western diet, sure, and probably quite a bit less. But completely absent? Nah.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
67% of calories from grains, vegetables, fruits, added sugars, and legumes doesn't sound like a diet based on animal foods. It sounds like a diet INCLUDING animal foods, which we already knew was compatible with human health. It's also not at all relevant to an argument that low carbohydrate is the only healthy diet.4 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
Yeah, I got the "Blue Zones Kitchen" cookbook from my library. It was Nicoya, and it (among all the other places listed) were very heavily plant-based recipes. I haven't looked at all of the recipes, but it seems they're all plant-based with no animal products (a.k.a., carb-heavy). Granted, this cookbook could be written by someone who is very much in favor of plant-based diets and it's possible true Blue Zone diets contain more animal products. In fact, I have a hard time believing no animal products are included in Blue Zone diets. Do they contain less than the traditional Western diet, sure, and probably quite a bit less. But completely absent? Nah.
There are many people in Loma Linda, CA (a blue zone) who don't include animal products in their diet, but it isn't exclusive. Others do eat them.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.7 -
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
Yeah, I feel like from reading this is one problem about gathering information about the long term implications of many diets -- most people just aren't going to stick with any "special" eating style that long.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
Yeah, I feel like from reading this is one problem about gathering information about the long term implications of many diets -- most people just aren't going to stick with any "special" eating style that long.
One of the constant changes when carbohydrates are restricted, which generally means an increase in protein and or fat is that blood triglycerides drop and HDL increases, this is not disputed. I'm going to presume that you know this and if not I can elaborate. The first link talks about the effect of short-term low- and high-fat diets on low-density lipoprotein particle size in normolipidemic subjects. What's interesting in this study is that the low carb diet consists of 37% of energy from fat and 50% of energy from carbohydrates and low fat diet consists of 25% fat and 62% of energy from carbohydrates.
While this study was only 3 days the study's intention was to show the immediate changes in lipoprotein particle sizes. Plasma triglycerides and fasting apolipoprotein B were significantly decreased. Pattern B which is another name given are the sdLDL particles which are considered highly atherogenic. LDL cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly increased. Now this is where the confusion starts . Because it's been repeated over and over again for decades that an increase in LDL leads to an increase in heart disease so therefore consuming animal protein which increases LDL, therefore increases the chances for atherosclerosis. Sounds logical but nobody has been able to prove it and this study is basically why they won't. The high-fat diet was also associated with a significant increase in LDL particle size and a significant decrease in the proportion of small LDL particle. Basically a lipoprotein is filled with triglycerides, fat soluble vitamins like E and CoQ10 for example and of course cholesterol. As stated plasma trigs were greatly reduced therefore the lipoprotein had more room for the extra cholesterol which were the "large" LDL particles also called pattern A which has replaced the "small" dense LDL particles which like I said are considered highly atherogenic. This is the main reason consuming animal protein increases both HDL and LDL and set the path that started the low fat era. Getting back to the diets for a second and if you didn't pick up on this I just want to point out that neither of these diets were low carb. The results were only to reflect the change from 62% carbs to 50% carbs. Now to be fair 62% carbs is awful high if were talking a western diet, but I'm not sure what the diets consisted of but never the less this change in lipid profiles over 3 days is quite telling. the second link just basically confirms the first, but these studies are plentiful if one was to look.
Sorry if this is to long but I started typing and couldn't help myself, cheers.
To EDIT: Just wanted to add that when you look at any study and I do mean any that when carbs are reduced in a high carb diet that triglycerides drop and HDL increases regardless even in isocaloric conditions, this study points that out and it's not even low carb but it's pretty much a constant like I said. These are health markers and important ones. This is not saying carbs are bad or a low carb is better. People should be aware that there is a difference when they consider the carbs they eat, whole is better, refined and sugar, not so much.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21816443/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-005-0062-9
3 -
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
Yeah, I feel like from reading this is one problem about gathering information about the long term implications of many diets -- most people just aren't going to stick with any "special" eating style that long.
One of the constant changes when carbohydrates are restricted, which generally means an increase in protein and or fat is that blood triglycerides drop and HDL increases, this is not disputed. I'm going to presume that you know this and if not I can elaborate. The first link talks about the effect of short-term low- and high-fat diets on low-density lipoprotein particle size in normolipidemic subjects. What's interesting in this study is that the low carb diet consists of 37% of energy from fat and 50% of energy from carbohydrates and low fat diet consists of 25% fat and 62% of energy from carbohydrates.
While this study was only 3 days the study's intention was to show the immediate changes in lipoprotein particle sizes. Plasma triglycerides and fasting apolipoprotein B were significantly decreased. Pattern B which is another name given are the sdLDL particles which are considered highly atherogenic. LDL cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly increased. Now this is where the confusion starts . Because it's been repeated over and over again for decades that an increase in LDL leads to an increase in heart disease so therefore consuming animal protein which increases LDL, therefore increases the chances for atherosclerosis. Sounds logical but nobody has been able to prove it and this study is basically why they won't. The high-fat diet was also associated with a significant increase in LDL particle size and a significant decrease in the proportion of small LDL particle. Basically a lipoprotein is filled with triglycerides, fat soluble vitamins like E and CoQ10 for example and of course cholesterol. As stated plasma trigs were greatly reduced therefore the lipoprotein had more room for the extra cholesterol which were the "large" LDL particles also called pattern A which has replaced the "small" dense LDL particles which like I said are considered highly atherogenic. This is the main reason consuming animal protein increases both HDL and LDL and set the path that started the low fat era. Getting back to the diets for a second and if you didn't pick up on this I just want to point out that neither of these diets were low carb. The results were only to reflect the change from 62% carbs to 50% carbs. Now to be fair 62% carbs is awful high if were talking a western diet, but I'm not sure what the diets consisted of but never the less this change in lipid profiles over 3 days is quite telling. the second link just basically confirms the first, but these studies are plentiful if one was to look.
Sorry if this is to long but I started typing and couldn't help myself, cheers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21816443/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-005-0062-9
Those links are only the abstracts.
I assume the articles themselves are behind a paywall?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions