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 > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 07:09
tomsey tomsey is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 382
 
Plan: No caffeine, no alcohol
Stats: 175/154/150 Male 5'8
BF:
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmkorn
Food additives, alcohol, caffeine, and refined sugar consumption can all lead to vitamin deficiencies. The first three have to be removed from the body, and the last takes away the opportunity to eat nutrious food. Try using rice bran oil, it is the worlds richest source of anti-oxidants, and it appears to lower cortisol production and inflammation. It may also help with food intolerance as that has been associated with certain vitamin deficiencies. Wheat germ oil is similar in nutrient content, but not as good a source of anti-oxidants. The other benefit of rice bran oil is that it is, like rice, hypoallergenic.

By the way, part of sugar consumption is self medication. People who are stressed eat more sugar because it produces and anit-stress molecule. Stress is also related to vitamin deficiency, people who increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables eat less sugar without being instructed to.



I'm intolerant to rice so I can't eat it in any form. Took me a lot of misery to figure that out (I initially thought it was due to gluten/opiod detox when not eating wheat and other things) but rice definitely is dangerous for me, even the relatively protein-less oil, which I did experiment with. On further reading, I've learned that rice allergy is common in asian countries and that one elimination diet specialist which uses rice as a hypoallergenic food finds rice intolerance to be 10% of the general pop. I wish I could eat it cause it is easy and cheap to make and tastes ok. Most fruits give me a hypoglycemic reaction and i really can't say any of them make me feel better. At best I get very hungry.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 07:11
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/175/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmkorn
That is true, but if we can identify exactly what is causing obesity, we can fix it through regulation.


Except that almost all the experts are clinging to an incorrect model as to what causes obesity.

There really is no profit in curing all the ills that come with finding the cause -- in fact, I would say that the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries would take a huge loss. Who is funding the research? I find it interesting that many studies that are considered valid at this point start with the researchers just trying to confirm what they already believe, and when they get different results, they explain them away.

Whole wheat may be ok as a filler for people who haven't destroyed their metabolism, but many many people have destroyed theirs on the highly refined diet we've had all our lives. And the fix for many people at least seems to be to just not eat wheat any more.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 07:29
tomsey tomsey is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 382
 
Plan: No caffeine, no alcohol
Stats: 175/154/150 Male 5'8
BF:
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredangel
Except that almost all the experts are clinging to an incorrect model as to what causes obesity.



yeah, what I got out of that documentary is the real cause of obesity is greed pure and simple, there is a lot of money made all around selling cheap possibly addictive processed food that has such a long shelf life, and that money is defended vigourously and always trying to be increased.. money talks

the economy as it is structured with its need for increasing consumption would likely collapse (and may still do anyway) if healthier, perishable, far less profitable food were mandated to be produced and advertised and sugar/nutritionless food were regulated or outlawed

instead they will say exercise more, paint people concerned about nutrition as food police or mentally ill or freedom robbers, add some omega threes or some other fraction of food to the junk that may or may not have some evidence of merit and call it a day, though I do believe we may one day be forced to eat healthier through circumstance

Last edited by tomsey : Wed, Jun-24-09 at 08:04.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 07:40
DTris DTris is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 271
 
Plan: Based on Barry Groves
Stats: 275/252/210 Male 6 feet
BF:
Progress: 35%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmkorn
I am not making a misleading statement, that was just the longest data set I had available, but I found a longer term one. Here is one from 1860 to 2000. In 1860, the American diet was 12% protein and 25% fat. In 2000, it was still 12% protein, but it was 37% fat. Simple sugars rose from 10% of the diet in 1860 to 25% today, these are mainly refined sugars and that is certainly not healthy.

What this data set show us is that we are eating much more fat than we were in 1860, when there was essentially no obesity, say less than 1 in 200 people (1 in 150 in 1900), and we are eating much fewer carbohydrates. Consumption of complex carbohydrates, mainly grains, has fallen my more than half in the 140 year period as obesity has skyrocketed. So we can't say the problem is we are eating too many carbohydrates and not enough fat. We are eating few carbohydrates and more fat than 150 years ago.

As I said before, I don't think decreased carbohydrate consumption is responsible for increased obesity, nor do I think increased fat consumption is. I am not saying the increase in obesity is obesity is due to not eating stone ground wheat, however, certainly anything that lower the nutritional content of our diet is unhealthy. Refining wheat to remove wheat bran oil certainly falls into that category. That oil has been shown to increase insulin sensitivity and lower cholesterol. It is a much denser source of vitamins and minerals than any known vegetable oil, the only known better source is rice bran oil.

Changes in Western Diet from 1860 - 2000:
http://www.chiphealth.com/topics/di...et-changed.html



Wow, an uncited chart. He also claims cuting down on saturated fat will increase HDL when that is not the case. Saturated fat increase HDL and LDL cholestrol and improves the ratio of HDL to LDL which is what correlates to risk of heart disease. Increasing saturated fat intake reduces artherosclerosis in women.

Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women
Dariush Mozaffarian, Eric B Rimm, and David M Herrington

ABSTRACT

Background: The influence of diet on atherosclerotic progression is not well established, particularly in postmenopausal women, in whom risk factors for progression may differ from those for men.

Objective: The objective was to investigate associations between dietary macronutrients and progression of coronary atherosclerosis among postmenopausal women.

Design: Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 3.1 y in 2243 coronary segments in 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease. Usual dietary intake was assessed at baseline.

Results: The mean total fat intake was 25 +/- 6% of energy. In multivariate analyses, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up. Compared with a 0.22-mm decline in the lowest quartile of intake, there was a 0.10-mm decline in the second quartile (P = 0.002), a 0.07-mm decline in the third quartile (P = 0.002), and no decline in the fourth quartile (P <0.001); P for trend = 0.001. This inverse association was more pronounced among women with lower monounsaturated fat (P for interaction = 0.04) and higher carbohydrate (P for interaction = 0.004) intakes and possibly lower total fat intake (P for interaction = 0.09). Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high. Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein. Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression.

Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.

Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80: 1175?84.

Now there's a surprise! This is what I have been preaching now for over 33 years — and what I have been castigated and vilified for saying!
But they could also have said that the same applies to pre-menopausal women and to women who eat a higher fat diet than the ones in this study. No doubt they will, when they have wasted more time and money doing (more of) such studies. Other quotes from the paper are:

"Among postmenopausal women with established CHD, greater saturated fat intake was associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis over an average follow-up of 3 y, whereas polyunsaturated fat and carbohydrate intakes were associated with greater progression."

"The magnitude, independence, and consistency of the inverse association between saturated fat intake and atherosclerotic progression are notable. Are there plausible biologic mechanisms for such an effect? In contrast with the findings of experimental studies, saturated fat intake was not associated with LDL concentrations in our study."

"A greater saturated fat intake was associated with other lipid differences, including higher HDL, . . . and a lower TC:HDL cholesterol ratio. These findings are consistent with those of experimental studies that showed unfavorable effects of low-fat, low-saturated-fat diets on HDL cholesterol,. . ."

"Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progressionwhenreplacing saturated fat and monounsaturated fat but not when replacing total fat, polyunsaturated fat, or protein. The association was perhaps stronger among women with lower physical activity, who would be more susceptible to adverse effects of carbohydrates — particularly refined carbohydrate — on HDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols, glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and weight gain. Consistent with such biologic mechanisms, the relation between carbohydrate intake and atherosclerotic progression appeared to be stronger in women with a higher glycemic index."

"Polyunsaturated fat intake was not associated with atherosclerotic progression when replacing carbohydrate or protein but was positively associated when replacing other fats, especially saturated fat."

"Our findings also suggest that carbohydrate intake may increase atherosclerotic progression, especially when refined carbohydrates replace saturated or monounsaturated fats."

Where does the data to support that diet come from?
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 09:04
Citruskiss Citruskiss is offline
I've decided
Posts: 16,864
 
Plan: LC
Stats: 235/137.6/130 Female 5' 5"
BF:haven't a clue
Progress: 93%
Default

All this research is way over my head, but wanted to ask:

How about the fact that our 'whole grain' products are loaded with trans fats and high fructose corn syrup? Those seemingly healthy bran muffins really aren't. The bread's no good either.

I do like your theory that successful weight-loss is dependent on the nutrient density of one's diet. I agree, it makes a lot of sense.

I started out my weight loss with standard Atkins - besides reducing the carbohydrate consumption, what really happened is that I eliminated trans fats, high fructose corn syrup and wheat products. I was (and still am) eating more vegetables than I ever did. I get 3-4 cups of vegetables every day, and that came from Atkins!

I tend to see things like bread and other grains as 'filler food' - or even like those styrofoam peanut things they use for packing boxes. There's no nutrition there. So why would I eat filler food instead of fish, meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit?

A lower-carbohydrate plan automatically increases the nutrient density of one's diet, by a whole lot. The rice, the bread, the 'whole grain' whatevers - aren't these just a waste of time? It's like the difference between Carnation Instant breakfast and a mushroom and spinach omelet.

Geeze - just the other day I saw an advertisement for Quaker brand 'granola' bars (available in chocolate or peanut butter flavours) now containing Omega 3's. They put some flax in there, and slapped on a "NEW" label.

I think it's weird/funny that we have calcium fortified orange juice, omega-3 granola bars and 'enriched' cereals. What's next? Green tea infused ketchup?

It's like 'Big Food' realizes we've seen the news - and heard that this study or that study shows certain nutrients are 'good' for us, but oh no....don't stop eating the junk food - we'll put some fish oil in your chocolate milk.

Don't get me started on finding 'heart healthy' turkey sausages, emblazoned with that cute red heart, and the seal of approval from the Heart Association....those sausages had corn syrup solids and high fructose corn syrup in them!
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 10:07
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default The Problem with whole grain breads

In response to "How about the fact that our 'whole grain' products are loaded with trans fats and high fructose corn syrup? Those seemingly healthy bran muffins really aren't. The bread's no good either."

Citruskiss,

This is another reason why the vast majority of our breads are unhealthy. There have been studies linking both aspartane and MSG to weight gain. What is the connection between the two? In both cases, the body has to use up nutrients to get rid of things that it perceives as toxins. While food additives are tested to see if they cause bad reactions, they are not rejected if the body needs to use of vitamins to expel them. The cumulative effect serves to worsen our nutritional state, and deficiencies in certain nutrients have been linked with increased hunger, insulin resistance, and obesity. In fact, this happens with fruits and vegetables as well. When they are grown with chemical fertilizers, their nutrient content is lower.

To play it safe, I don't buy any foods which have ingredients I can't identify. I shop at health food stores, where you can get products with fewer additives, and I try to buy organic.

-Daniel
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 10:16
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default Allergy to rice

Tomsey,

How are you with wheat? Wheat bran oil would serve the same purpose nutritionally, even if slightly less concentrated.

-Daniel

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomsey
I'm intolerant to rice so I can't eat it in any form. Took me a lot of misery to figure that out (I initially thought it was due to gluten/opiod detox when not eating wheat and other things) but rice definitely is dangerous for me, even the relatively protein-less oil, which I did experiment with. On further reading, I've learned that rice allergy is common in asian countries and that one elimination diet specialist which uses rice as a hypoallergenic food finds rice intolerance to be 10% of the general pop. I wish I could eat it cause it is easy and cheap to make and tastes ok. Most fruits give me a hypoglycemic reaction and i really can't say any of them make me feel better. At best I get very hungry.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 10:28
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default My Analysis

DTris,

I agree that the farther back we go, the less accurate the data become.
However, grain consumption used to be much higher than it is today. Grains made civilization possible. Before mechanical transportation was invented, it was very difficult to have food shipped to cities. Grain allowed large areas of farm land to ship their products to a city in a concentrated form. If you think about it, there is no way we could have supplied cities with all the calories from vegetables when horse and buggy were the primary land transportation. We have several thousand years of grain consumption before obesity became a problem. So grains in and of themselves are not the cause of obesity.

You are correct that correlation is not cause. If I was trying to use this data to prove that fat and meat are the cause of obesity, it would be inaccurate. However, I am not trying to prove fat and meat are the cause of obesity, I don't think they are. After all, the French eat much more meat and fat than we do, and they have an obesity rate that is 70% lower. The example of the Inuit is more extreme.

I agree that processed oils and refined sugars play a role in obesity. These are both nutritionally empty foods. Deficiency of certain nutrients has been linked to insulin resistance and increased hunger. However, just as vegetables products can be made unhealthy through refining products (the hydrogenated oils) so can grains.

I want to say one more time, I do not think lack of grains causes obesity. We have been eating grains for several thousand years without obesity. We have been eating fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and wild games for several hundred thousand years without obesity. Since evolution needs time to work, we are likely much more suiting to consuming this diet that the grain one. However, all of these products are different in modern times than in hunter/gatherer times, as our the grains different from even one hundred years ago. This still doesn't change the fact that we ate grains for several thousand years before obesity became a health problem. I don't bring this up to say we should eat more grains, I am just trying to isolate the actual cause of weight gain.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DTris
dmkorn, Your analysis of obesity with grain consumption and meat consumption is not very accurate. First I am guessing that the study you cited uses the USDA data for food cosnumption. However the data from prior to 1925 or so (going by memory) was estimated as they had no good numbers for it. Even after that it was based on certain commercial sales figures which are highly misleading. Meat killed by hunting or on the farm would not be included in the data. Neither would wild caught fish. All my grandparents and great grandparents grew up on farms, raising there own meat and vegetables as well as hunting and fishing for food. That way of existence was much more common than today and would not have been measurable.

Secondly it is always inaccurate to look at a correlation of one item to one criteria. The incidence of obesity may increase with the apparent increase in meat consumption. It also may increase with the decrease of whole grain consumption, no argument that whole grain consumption has decreased. It may also have increased with the decrease in traditional food prepping methods. It also has increased with the consumption of polyunsaturated oils. It also has increased with the consumtion of refined sugar and refined carbohydrates in general.

I am sure there are even more correlates. Any one of these can be taken in isolation and a conclusion be drawn, but only when the totality of the available data is examined will we actually be able to get an accurate answer.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that real whole weats contain more nutrients than refined wheats and that more nutrients is better. However that also doesn't mean that lack of good grain causes obesity. Whole grains still contain phytates and other bad things. Only when someone can look at the big picture with an open mind and a lot of expertise in varied fields will we start to get an accurate account of the casues of obesity.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 10:38
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default Re: most expert are clinging to an incorrect model as to what causes obesity

I think it isn't that researchers are clinging to an incorrect model, I think they are confused. We don't even understand how DNA works, we still likely haven't identified all of the substances that are vitamins, beneficial enzymes or plant chemicals. So its a mystery, and the best way to solve a mystery is the way a Sherlock Holmes novel used to do it. According to that fictional detective, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no mater how improbable, must be the truth." So what we need to do is eliminate all the choices that can not be correct, look at the weight gain research, and use the remaining possible causes of obesity to try to explain it.

You are correct that those of us who have health problems from a bad diet need special care. However, I would point out that whole wheat really isn't whole wheat. In order to contain the vitamins, minerals and plant chemicals that are similar to fruits and vegetables, it has to be labeled 100% whole wheat. This is removed even in products labeled whole wheat because it extends shelf life. Without this oil removed, bread spoils just like fruits and vegetables. One of the problems discovered in people with both obesity and allergies is that they tend to have vitamin deficiencies. Obesity increases the probability that you will have allergies, and I think diet nutrient deficiency is a contributor to both.

It is fine if you don't want to eat grains, there is really no need. We didn't eat grains for the vast majority of human history. However, if you accept the hypothesis that poor nutrition increases hunger, you should eat the food with the highest nutrient content. Fruits and vegetables produced without chemical fertilizers have higher nutrient contents, as do cold pressed oils, wild caught fish, and organic grass fed meats.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredangel
Except that almost all the experts are clinging to an incorrect model as to what causes obesity.

There really is no profit in curing all the ills that come with finding the cause -- in fact, I would say that the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries would take a huge loss. Who is funding the research? I find it interesting that many studies that are considered valid at this point start with the researchers just trying to confirm what they already believe, and when they get different results, they explain them away.

Whole wheat may be ok as a filler for people who haven't destroyed their metabolism, but many many people have destroyed theirs on the highly refined diet we've had all our lives. And the fix for many people at least seems to be to just not eat wheat any more.

Last edited by dmkorn : Wed, Jun-24-09 at 12:06. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 10:42
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default Greed vs. Stupidity

There is an old law called Hanlon's razor which reads:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If there was a consensus in the medical community as to what caused obesity, it would have been banned. Anyone who violated the ban would go to jail. The problem is the lack of a provable method. The person who figures it out and published a book changes the world, almost instantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomsey
yeah, what I got out of that documentary is the real cause of obesity is greed pure and simple, there is a lot of money made all around selling cheap possibly addictive processed food that has such a long shelf life, and that money is defended vigourously and always trying to be increased.. money talks

the economy as it is structured with its need for increasing consumption would likely collapse (and may still do anyway) if healthier, perishable, far less profitable food were mandated to be produced and advertised and sugar/nutritionless food were regulated or outlawed

instead they will say exercise more, paint people concerned about nutrition as food police or mentally ill or freedom robbers, add some omega threes or some other fraction of food to the junk that may or may not have some evidence of merit and call it a day, though I do believe we may one day be forced to eat healthier through circumstance
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 10:54
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default My Chart and Your Study

I was not supporting his suggestions, I just used his chart. His chart matched the data on the study from Cancer Research I cited for the period it covered. I have to repeat, I am not claiming that carbohydrates cause obesity, nor am I claiming that fats cause obesity.

The study you showed say that increased fat slows heart disease. However, we don't know what was in that fat, or what type of fat it was. Many vitamins and nutrients that cut down on heart disease are present in certain types of fats. Yet that nutrient content can be changed from production methods. For example, vitamin E is four times higher in meats raised on grass than on corn and soy. Also, while omega-3 fats in most cases have been show improve cardiovascular health, omega-6 fats are harmful.

I can cite studies that say saturated fats are bad for cardiovascular health. Which I have done at the bottom of this post. However, I think they are neither bad nor good. I think they tend to be nutrient poor in our diet. Omega-6 fats are also supposed to be bad for cardiovascular health.

Most sources of saturated fat in our diet, like beef, are high in omega-6 fats. We usually think of omega-6 fats as inflammatory, and their increasing prevalence has been associated with bad cholesterol and sleep disturbances. However, rice bran oil is high in omega-6 fats at it has been shown to improve cholesterol, be anti-inflammatory, and improve sleep. The difference between rice bran oil and most omega-6 oils, is it is highly nutritive. With about thirty times the anti-oxidants of olive oil. It even contains an anti-oxidant found in no other substance.

Studies have shown that taking that supplementing diet with these fats can cause falls in cholesterol similar to that seen in drugs. Most fat in our diet is from animal products, and in our society, vegans eat the least animal fat, which is contains saturated fat. Vegans have an obesity rate that is 40% lower than omnivores in the U.S. Yet the Canadian Inuit, who eat more saturated fat than omnivores in this country, also have a lower obesity rate than omnivores in the United States.

While this seems to be contradictory, it isn't if the important factor is nutrient quantity and quality. We can't say all fats are good or bad, we can't say all types of fats are good or bad, and we can't say all types of grain products are good or bad. The ways food is produced and processed affects the nutrient content, and determines if food is healthy.



# ^ Francisco Fuentes; José López-Miranda; Elias Sánchez; Francisco Sánchez; José Paez; Elier Paz-Rojas; Carmen Marín; Purificación Gómez; José Jimenez-Perepérez; José M. Ordovás,; and Francisco Pérez-Jiménez Mediterranean and Low-Fat Diets Improve Endothelial Function in Hypercholesterolemic Men Annals of Internal Medicine 19 June 2001, Volume 134, Issue 12, pp. 1115–1119
# ^ Rivellese AA, Maffettone A, Vessby B, et al. (March 2003). "Effects of dietary saturated, monounsaturated and n-3 fatty acids on fasting lipoproteins, LDL size and post-prandial lipid metabolism in healthy subjects". Atherosclerosis 167 (1): 149–58. doi:10.1016/S0021-9150(02)00424-0. PMID 12618280. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retr...021915002004240.
# ^ Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. (November 1997). "Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women". N. Engl. J. Med. 337 (21): 1491–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM199711203372102. PMID 9366580. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...act/337/21/1491.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTris
Wow, an uncited chart. He also claims cuting down on saturated fat will increase HDL when that is not the case. Saturated fat increase HDL and LDL cholestrol and improves the ratio of HDL to LDL which is what correlates to risk of heart disease. Increasing saturated fat intake reduces artherosclerosis in women.

Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women
Dariush Mozaffarian, Eric B Rimm, and David M Herrington

ABSTRACT

Background: The influence of diet on atherosclerotic progression is not well established, particularly in postmenopausal women, in whom risk factors for progression may differ from those for men.

Objective: The objective was to investigate associations between dietary macronutrients and progression of coronary atherosclerosis among postmenopausal women.

Design: Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 3.1 y in 2243 coronary segments in 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease. Usual dietary intake was assessed at baseline.

Results: The mean total fat intake was 25 +/- 6% of energy. In multivariate analyses, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up. Compared with a 0.22-mm decline in the lowest quartile of intake, there was a 0.10-mm decline in the second quartile (P = 0.002), a 0.07-mm decline in the third quartile (P = 0.002), and no decline in the fourth quartile (P <0.001); P for trend = 0.001. This inverse association was more pronounced among women with lower monounsaturated fat (P for interaction = 0.04) and higher carbohydrate (P for interaction = 0.004) intakes and possibly lower total fat intake (P for interaction = 0.09). Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high. Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein. Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression.

Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.

Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80: 1175?84.

Now there's a surprise! This is what I have been preaching now for over 33 years — and what I have been castigated and vilified for saying!
But they could also have said that the same applies to pre-menopausal women and to women who eat a higher fat diet than the ones in this study. No doubt they will, when they have wasted more time and money doing (more of) such studies. Other quotes from the paper are:

"Among postmenopausal women with established CHD, greater saturated fat intake was associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis over an average follow-up of 3 y, whereas polyunsaturated fat and carbohydrate intakes were associated with greater progression."

"The magnitude, independence, and consistency of the inverse association between saturated fat intake and atherosclerotic progression are notable. Are there plausible biologic mechanisms for such an effect? In contrast with the findings of experimental studies, saturated fat intake was not associated with LDL concentrations in our study."

"A greater saturated fat intake was associated with other lipid differences, including higher HDL, . . . and a lower TC:HDL cholesterol ratio. These findings are consistent with those of experimental studies that showed unfavorable effects of low-fat, low-saturated-fat diets on HDL cholesterol,. . ."

"Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progressionwhenreplacing saturated fat and monounsaturated fat but not when replacing total fat, polyunsaturated fat, or protein. The association was perhaps stronger among women with lower physical activity, who would be more susceptible to adverse effects of carbohydrates — particularly refined carbohydrate — on HDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols, glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and weight gain. Consistent with such biologic mechanisms, the relation between carbohydrate intake and atherosclerotic progression appeared to be stronger in women with a higher glycemic index."

"Polyunsaturated fat intake was not associated with atherosclerotic progression when replacing carbohydrate or protein but was positively associated when replacing other fats, especially saturated fat."

"Our findings also suggest that carbohydrate intake may increase atherosclerotic progression, especially when refined carbohydrates replace saturated or monounsaturated fats."

Where does the data to support that diet come from?

Last edited by dmkorn : Wed, Jun-24-09 at 11:17. Reason: grammar and addition
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 11:39
dmkorn dmkorn is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 401
 
Plan: Why Diet & Exercise Fail
Stats: 230/180/180 Male 5'11
BF:
Progress:
Default Grain Consumption from 1909 to 1996

OK, the previous chart I posted on carbohydrate consumption from 1860 to 2000 was not cited, and it did not show a break down between grains and other carbohydrates. I did a little digging, and I found a better source. Here is the United States department of Agriculture Factbook for 1998 (or at least chapter 1a).

If you go all of the way to the bottom, to the second to last chart, it shows that consumption of flour and cereal products fell from about 1909 to the 1980s, they started to rise in the late 80s. At the end of 1996, consumption was about 100 pounds below the level in 1909. This period saw a huge increase in obesity and quantity of grain products consumed can't explain it, although nutrient quality could be a factor, and I think it is.

However, it is one of many nutrient quality changes that have occurred in our diet during this time period.

United States Agriculture Department Factbook, 1998
http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook98/ch1a.htm

Last edited by dmkorn : Wed, Jun-24-09 at 11:42. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 11:46
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Yeah, you can't just pick out one and decide that's the cause or not the cause. We're already suffering from idiot doctors and researchers doing that sort of sloppy thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 13:03
tomsey tomsey is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 382
 
Plan: No caffeine, no alcohol
Stats: 175/154/150 Male 5'8
BF:
Progress: 84%
Default

a large part of it is likely as simple as this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11229668

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ogdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.cspinet.org/new/sugar_limit.html


Fructose:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...80724064824.htm

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911


Fructose and fat:

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/c...ourcetype=HWCIT


Artifical sweeteners appear to be no bargain either based on studies with rats and that they (or a popular one) stimulate insulin secretion.

Last edited by tomsey : Wed, Jun-24-09 at 14:07.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Wed, Jun-24-09, 13:22
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/175/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmkorn
I think it isn't that researchers are clinging to an incorrect model, I think they are confused. We don't even understand how DNA works, we still likely haven't identified all of the substances that are vitamins, beneficial enzymes or plant chemicals. So its a mystery, and the best way to solve a mystery is the way a Sherlock Holmes novel used to do it. According to that fictional detective, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no mater how improbable, must be the truth." So what we need to do is eliminate all the choices that can not be correct, look at the weight gain research, and use the remaining possible causes of obesity to try to explain it.

You are correct that those of us who have health problems from a bad diet need special care. However, I would point out that whole wheat really isn't whole wheat. In order to contain the vitamins, minerals and plant chemicals that are similar to fruits and vegetables, it has to be labeled 100% whole wheat. This is removed even in products labeled whole wheat because it extends shelf life. Without this oil removed, bread spoils just like fruits and vegetables. One of the problems discovered in people with both obesity and allergies is that they tend to have vitamin deficiencies. Obesity increases the probability that you will have allergies, and I think diet nutrient deficiency is a contributor to both.

It is fine if you don't want to eat grains, there is really no need. We didn't eat grains for the vast majority of human history. However, if you accept the hypothesis that poor nutrition increases hunger, you should eat the food with the highest nutrient content. Fruits and vegetables produced without chemical fertilizers have higher nutrient contents, as do cold pressed oils, wild caught fish, and organic grass fed meats.


Heh, you're the one who said something about regulation. Experts are not only confused, but explaining away results that don't support their original hypothoses.

I believe that wheat and sugar may leech vitamins from our bodies.

I WANT to eat grain. I LOVE bread, cakes, muffins, pasta . . . all SO good. Howeve, it's to the point now that even steel cut oats, hell, even a small portion of potato leek soup . . . even SOY SAUCE that has wheat in it sets a hunger off in me which is crazy. I know I will never be able to eat wheat, rice, oats, corn, etc. again. All grains I've tried have that effect on me. And I don't think I'm alone -- and maybe if the confused researchers actually started looking at their results rather than trying to explain them away, we could move our country to a healthier way of life. But since there is HUGE $$ on the line for not doing that, I don't expect changes any time soon.

It's not that I "don't want to" eat grains. It makes me ill. Whether it's the same as it was 10,000 years ago when we started farming it or not is actually irrelevant as is whether the wheat is whole or not -- what we eat is what we have NOW and available to us.

I seriously do understand about macronutrients in food -- most people here probably already have read everything they can get their hands on regarding that. Hah, you're talking to the food obsessed!
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 06:33.


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