Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Mar-31-19, 11:43
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,475
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default A good article if you have the time to read it

"You have the clocks, we've got the time" -- old Afghan saying

https://www.bobblum.com/ESSAYS/BIOMED/food.html

Have to differ with him on sat fats, vegetable oils and a plant biased diet though.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Mar-31-19, 14:06
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

mike - Agree with your observations. This is a long article by Blum, and a few points worth noting:

Regarding LDL and health with LDL as the villain:
Quote:
While these processes are the widely accepted cause of atherosclerosis — the leading cause of death — researchers place more or less emphasis on differing parts of the atherosclerotic mechanism.

While high triglycerides and LDL-cholesterol have clearly been implicated as "bad guys" and HDL-cholesterol, which (supposedly) carries cholesterol out of the plaque, (may be) one of the "good guys," even when they are taken into account, a lot of disease still remains unexplained.

I agree with Blum in this case, but there's more that doesn't make much sense in many topics covered in this article. For example, regarding protein consumption, his calculation of optimum protein for humans butchers the equation, and he's way short on his idea of recommended daily protein.

Regarding evidence, most studies referenced, including Campbell's studies, are epidemiological studies. So, to posture a solution is premature and uninformed.

Assessment of Taubes' and Cordain's claims:
Quote:
"And finally, his (Taubes') most controversial positions: 1) Chronic diseases like atherosclerosis are caused exclusively by refined carbs and starches and not by fats. (The Paleo gang blames inflammation and not fats.) 2) The following foods can be eaten without restraint: meat, fish, fowl, cheese, eggs, butter, and non-starchy vegetables. Really? 3) Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter. 4) The obesity epidemic is not due to overeating nor to our sedentary lifestyle."

"While these positions seem ludicrous (especially considering the mountains of evidence presented by the vegetarian and CR advocates, there is a grain of truth in some of them - just a grain. (taken out of context, they are each grossly inaccurate.")

I've bolded one of the statements that isn't consistent with what I know, and if it were true, doesn't make any sense: "The Paleo gang blames inflammation and not fats." This doesn't represent a difference in views in my mind, as inflammation can be caused by many things. The rest of his statements, as he states in this same article, have yet to be proven.

Guyenet's response to his query about satfats and CHD:
Quote:
"Regarding the effect of SFA (satfat) on atherosclerosis and CHD risk, I continue to maintain that a significant role in humans has not been established."

"A recent meta-analysis by Ronald Krauss's group concluded there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. SFA increases LDL cholesterol content (not necessarily particle number) in the short term, but apparently not oxLDL and they also increase HDL. Therefore, the effect of SFA on LDL cholesterol content cannot be used in isolation to predict its effect on CHD risk. What we need to consider are studies that examine the effect of SFA on CHD risk directly. These have been conducted, and they largely indicate that SFA reduction is ineffective for CHD prevention, particularly when it is replaced by n-6 rich refined seed oils."

It's clear that Blum favors a vegetarian or pescatarian WOE. He attempts to present a balanced review, but is clearly weighing his preferences more toward the vegan/vegetarian approach with his gushing over the wisdom and recommendations of Ornish, Esselstyn, Campbell, Furman, and others. Bottom line? We still have no conclusive findings about the role of saturated fat and our health. The epidemiological studies referenced are a distraction, but are also insidious because the implication is that they are totally relevant and accurate.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:43.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.