Just finished reading "The Carbohydrate Addict's 7-Day Plan" and several times the authors state that saturated fat causes large insulin spikes and tell their readers to avoid it. I had never heard of that. Anyone know where the source is for this information?

just bumping because I would love to know the answer What do the Hellers actually say ???

I thought fat causes virtually NO insulin spikes. That's what Dr. Atkins said! That's also the premise of the Fat Fast.

I will have to give the 7Day book another look and see just what it says on this. Let you know what I find out.

Hmmmmmm..................

Dr. Barry Sears has done tons of research on eicosanoids, and what affects them, and has stated that fats are "hormonally neutral"; meaning they play essentially no part in insulin/glucagon regulation.

thanks, Sueoncalp and dane. thats what Ive read, too , and why Im so intrigued to read maybe the Hellers have a different angle on it.

Vel, thanks, let us know what you discover !

The book sites a study done on TRANSfats, in relation to heart disease, dated 1997, but gives no reason behind the insulin spike problem other than to make a blanket statement that they just DO. It lumps saturated fats and transfats into the "avoid" category.

I don't understand why they put sour cream and cream cheese in the "low-carb protein food" list either, since they say to avoid sat. fats, and stick to low-fat choices, particularly sat fats, which cream is loaded with.....

I missed pg. 112, where they give the names of some places they base their claim on. I'm not familiar with them, but thought I'd list them for those who may want to research it further.

Dr. A. R. Folsom study.

Dr. KD Ward's research in the Normative Aging Study

Dr EJ Mayer's study of Nondiabetic women.

thanks potatofree
I looked up some on google .. had trouble decoding it
theres also mention in Schwarzbein II about some people doing better with low sat fat..... its frustrating not knowing the 'whys'

Not to mention they're NOT great sources of protein!

I did some searching and found some possible articles.

For Folsom: "[font=&quot]Dietary fat and incidence of type 2 diabetes in older Iowa women."
[/font][font=&quot]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Citation

For Ward: "[/font] The relationships of abdominal obesity, hyperinsulinaemia and saturated fat intake to serum lipid levels: the Normative Aging Study. Int J Obes 1994;18:137–44"
I could not find this article on the internet, just references to it.

For Mayer: "Usual dietary fat intake and insulin concentrations in healthy women twins" [font=&quot]
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cg...ract/16/11/1459

[/font]

That's what's confusing to me. Having them on the list seems to directly counter the rules they outline.

I've already gotten in too much trouble for debating the statements they've made about certain other foods, which is why I got the book to read. I wanted to know what they had to say. (That, and it was clearanced out for $4.98, a bargain for a newer book with a $23.98 original price...)

thanks , everyone.
Something that has always interested me, too, is in my original Dr A, theres something along the lines of ( my bold)

some people are fat sensitive and their cholesterol numbers dont improve. Its ok for these people ( and a percentage is mentioned...maybe 1 in 4 ? )to follow a lower fat version of DANDR.

whats fat sensitive ??? so Dr Atkins identifies some people as fat sensitive ???

Course all this is going on because I .. maybe..not sure....do better on lower sat fats myself..

That statement, depending on the exact wording, would seem to indicate he used to believe sat fat, or any fat(since it didn't specify), may have an effect on the blood cholesterol levels of a certain percentage of people. OR that some people lose better on lower fat levels...which I believe is true, despite the people who push "get your fat up!" to people not losing on Atkins.

In any case, and on any plan, IMO... you have to adjust to what your OWN body tells you. If you feel like you lose better on lower-fat, I say go for it!

I don't know if this will speak directly to the issue in this thread--I hope so--but on p. 349 of Protein Power by the Eades is a section entitled "Arachidonic Acid: Nature Throws Us a Curve." The section explains that AA is the immediate precursor of "bad eicosanoids" and that the dietary variety of AA (arachidonic acid) can transform in the blood into these eicosanoids, causing a problem with weight loss even if you're doing everything else right. Thus, if you are particularly sensitive to AA, you may find that you'll be sabotaged insulin-wise, even if you do everything else perfectly. AA is found in all meats (esp. red and organ) and in egg yolks. (There's a list of symptoms associated with too much AA or sensitivity to same):

chronic fatigue
poor or restless sleep
difficulty awakening or grogginess upon awakening
brittle hair
thin, brittle nails
constipation
dry, flaking skin
minor rashes

They go on to say that it's not the saturated fat that causes most of the problems associated with such foods, it's their AA content--for those who are sensitive to AA.

Their next section explains that butter and similar products with saturated fats won't cause a problem unless you are sensitive to AA. Then you may get sabotaged

PotatoFree, that may be why they have certain dairy products in their list of okay foods--that they contain sat fats isn't the problem, according to them, as much as the AA those foods contain--if you are sensitive to the AA in sat fat foods.

Does this help?

Best, sona