Quote:
Low carbohydrate diets, recommended for weight control, often
contain less than 15% of energy intake from carbohydrates and
about 30% of energy intake from proteins.30 Among the women
studied, carbohydrate intake at the low extreme of the
distribution was higher and protein intake at the high extreme
of the distribution was lower than the respective intakes
prescribed by many weight control diets. However, the
underlying trend between low carbohydrate-high protein score
and incidence of cardiovascular disease was essentially
monotonic, indicating that our findings are applicable across
the spectrum of carbohydrate and protein intakes of the
participating women
|
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestr...pdf/0/bmj.e4026
That's one of the references used by the forks over knives dude.
The three studies he posts to show that
Quote:
|
Low-Carbohydrate Diets Contribute to a Higher Risk of Death and Disease
|
all have the same flaw. The red lettering is complete and utter rubbish, you can't show the correlation of death and disease this way. The difference between a hundred and fifty grams of carbs and fifty grams of carbs is far greater than the difference between three hundred grams of carbs and a hundred and fifty grams of carbs. Why? The fifty gram diet is far more likely to be ketogenic. That's a game changer. Even if it wasn't, there's the bias that will show up due to health consciousness. A lot of people are still eating high carbohydrate, low meat diets, because they think it's healthy--and also doing a lot of other things they think are healthy, some of which they're probably right about, such as not smoking.
This one;
Quote:
Animal Foods Increase Inflammation
The 2013 European Journal of Nutrition published the article “Consumption of Red Meat and Whole-Grain Bread in Relation to Biomarkers of Obesity, Inflammation, Glucose Metabolism, and Oxidative Stress.” Their conclusion: The results of this study suggest that high consumption of whole-grain bread is related to lower levels of GGT, ALT, and hs-CRP, whereas high consumption of red meat is associated with higher circulating levels of GGT and hs-CRP. (Lower inflammatory markers, like CRP, are associated with better health.)
|
As far as more whole grain bread being protective--I believe Davis has compared whole grain bread to filtered cigarettes. Slightly less bad. If you compared whole grain bread consumers to people who didn't eat wheat at all, what would the biomarkers look like?
At least McDougall is kind enough to link his references.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...Article_340.pdf
Yes, the association was there. No, once again, none of the groups were eating as Dr. Davis or Perlmutter would like them to. Were they ketogenic enough? Was the meat the problem--or was it the association of meat with an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle, the flipside of the healthy consumer problem.
Another thing to look for is the difference between statistically significant and clinically or real-world significance. ALT, for instance. 21.1 in the low red meat consumers. 22.4 in the high red meat consumers.
This site;
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-diso...rase-alt?page=2
gives the reference range for men as 10-40 units per liter, for women as 7-35 units per liter. I don't even know if the units of measurement are the same here as in the study. Doesn't matter... this reference range is enough to show that the difference between 21.1 and 22.4 while statistically significant, is hardly clinically so. With a higher average over the group, it's possible more people's ALT reach dangerous levels that suggest liver damage in the higher meat eating group.
Interesting thing with the hs-CRP here... with increased whole grain consumption of 80, increased consumption of red meat seems to decrease hs-CRP rather than increase it. (see figure 1). Not everybody who eats red meat is un-health-conscious. Maybe health-conscious people who are unbiased against red meat do just fine--it's just that at the time of the study, perhaps, there were still more health-conscious types who were suspicious of red meat, than not--comparing high whole grain consuming red meat eaters with low whole grain consuming red meat eaters might just be a way of sorting health conscious red meat eaters from non health-conscious red meat eaters. Maybe I should find another seven ways of saying that same thing, just in case I haven't pounded this idea into the ground yet.
Quote:
Grains (Including Wheat) Do Not Increase Inflammation
The 2010 Journal of Nutrition published the article “Whole Grains Are Associated with Serum Concentrations of High Sensitivity C-reactive Protein among Premenopausal Women.” Their conclusion: Women who consumed >or= 1 serving/d of whole grains had a lower probability of having moderate (P = 0.008) or elevated (P = 0.001) hs-CRP, according to the AHA criteria, compared with non-consumers
|
Again... the association is with "healthywholegrains," not with grains vs non-grains. Non-grain eaters are a rarity on this planet. The differences shown in studies like this aren't between eating grain and not, they're between eating whole grain and not--and an appalling amount of the "not" comes in the form of refined white flour, corn starch, sugar, etc. We're back at Dr. Davis's filtered cigarette analogy.
Epidemiological studies that fail to even find low carbohydrate eaters in any great numbers among their subjects are kind of useless. It's like taking the horses with the pointiest foreheads and then coming to conclusions about unicorns. It will not work. Intervention studies, where people actually eat low carb diets--those are a bit better. ALT?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1884438/
Quote:
There are few studies that directly compare different diets for NASH treatment. In the largest randomized trial, with 170 overweight adults, 6 months of a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet produced equivalent reductions in intrahepatic fat, ALT, visceral adiposity, total weight and insulin sensitivity.[38] A 3-month study similarly found that low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets reduced ALT to a similar degree.[39]
Other studies suggest that carbohydrate-restricted diets might be more beneficial for reducing surrogate markers of NAFLD than fat-restricted diets. In a small study, Kirk et al. compared a low-carbohydrate with a low-fat diet. Both decreased body weight by approximately 7%. The low-carbohydrate diet decreased intrahepatic fat significantly more after 48 h (-30 vs. -10%), but the diets led to equal decreases in liver fat after 11 weeks (-38 vs. -42%). Neither diet changed aspartate aminotransferase nor ALT[40] In a carbohydrate overfeeding paradigm that induced NAFLD, weight loss did reverse the hepatic steatosis.[41]
|
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779777_4
http://www.metabolismjournal.com/ar...00223-0/abstrac
Quote:
Abstract
Objective
High fat, low carbohydrate (HFLC) diets have become popular tools for weight management. We sought to determine the effects of a HFLC diet compared to a low fat high carbohydrate (LFHC) diet on the change in weight loss, cardiovascular risk factors and inflammation in subjects with obesity.
Methods
Obese subjects (29.0–44.6 kg/m2) recruited from Boston Medical Center were randomized to a hypocaloric LFHC (n = 26) or HFLC (n = 29) diet for 12 weeks.
Results
The age range of subjects was 21–62 years. As a percentage of daily calories, the HFLC group consumed 33.5% protein, 56.0% fat and 9.6% carbohydrate and the LFHC group consumed 22.0% protein, 25.0% fat and 55.7% carbohydrate. The change in percent body weight, lean and fat mass, blood pressure, flow mediated dilation, hip:waist ratio, hemoglobin A1C, fasting insulin and glucose, and glucose and insulin response to a 2 h oral glucose tolerance test did not differ (P > 0.05) between diets after 12 weeks. The HFLC group had greater mean decreases in serum triglyceride (P = 0.07), and hs-CRP (P = 0.03), and greater mean increases in HDL cholesterol (P = 0.004), and total adiponectin (P = 0.045) relative to the LFHC. Secreted adipose tissue adiponectin or TNF-α did not differ after weight loss for either diet.
Conclusions
Relative to the LFHC group, the HFLC group had greater improvements in blood lipids and systemic inflammation with similar changes in body weight and composition. This small-scale study suggests that HFLC diets may be more beneficial to cardiovascular health and inflammation in free-living obese adults compared to LFHC diets.
|
I guess it's possible that burning fat is good for you when you're obese and losing weight, but bad when you're weight-stable. I think that the onus of proof is on the person who believes that's true, though. There's a far bigger difference between the metabolism of an obese person eating a high carbohydrate diet and losing weight, and the metabolism of a weight stable person eating a high carbohydrate diet than there is between the metabolisms on a low carb diet, losing weight vs. maintenance. Pretty much by definition.
Smoke & Mirrors? .. review of Wheat Belly and Grain Brain
Linear Mode
