• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

not quite endorsing LCHF, but not far off

Really interesting article, just started my LCHF, at my age nothing to lose (62) wife is worried though, must catch the prog tonight.
 
My wife was apprehensive when I started low carbing too. Thankfully, another member of this forum, Dillinger, had posted a link to this video which explains things rather nicely. She was much happier once we had watched it.

 
Good to see something positive like this in the mainstream which helps to banish the myth that fat is bad.
 
I worked for many years as a theatre sister and I've seen arteries blocked ect. It isn't pretty. My closed friend a consultant cardiologist is very interested in lchf. Indeed tells me he follows it himself and recommends his patients do now. The tide is turning I believe.
 
my money in on the corporate grain, grain oil, corn syrup and sugar. there is ever increasing consumption...it won't be back to the 1970's rate in my lifetime
 
Charles Robin said:
My wife was apprehensive when I started low carbing too. Thankfully, another member of this forum, Dillinger, had posted a link to this video which explains things rather nicely. She was much happier once we had watched it.

Click to expand...
Thanks for that Charles, brilliant lecture by one of us! I will make sure she watches.
 
No not quite an endorsement as you say. I wouldn't argue against what Dr Mosley says he's done in the final paragraph. None of this is talking about what I think of as a high fat diet and a world away from the diets advocated by people like Jimmy Moore and others who suggest diets of 80%+ fat)
I think there are some big flaws in the article though.

1) The first paper mentioned got several of its figures wrong and had to be corrected. though it's end conclusion has been allowed to stand . Basically though it seemed to dismiss beneficial effects of unsaturated fats. Here's how they had to change one such passage. The now corrected paper gives, in places, a totally different impression from what was originally published
the authors took one study on omega-3 fats, one type of unsaturated fats, to show a slightly negative effect while, in fact, it had shown a strong positive effect. The correction means that the meta-analysis now says people who report eating lots of this particular fat have significantly less heart disease; previously, it said there was no significant effect
Click to expand...
http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2...rors-controversial-paper-about-saturated-fats
.2) . Nuts are good yes but though they contain some sat fat they contain far more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats . Even a nut with a higher sat fat content (Brazil) contains 3 times as much unsaturated fat as saturated.( ie in 100g: 14.8 sat, 21.8, monounsat, 29.0, polyunsat) Nuts like almonds and walnuts have far higher proportions of unsaturated fats.
3)
7,500 men and women were randomly allocated to either a low-fat diet or a much higher fat Mediterranean diet, the high-fat group clearly came out tops. On the Med diet, along with fruit, vegetables, meat and fish, the volunteers were encouraged to eat oily nuts, olive oil and have a glass of wine with their meal
Click to expand...
In my opinion I totally agree that the Predimed trial was a triumph for the Med diet.
It's absolutely wrong though to suggest that it was a high fat diet compared with a low fat diet. Advice was given that was supposed to be low fat advice but the control 'low fat' subjects weren't ever eating low fat in any shape or form.
They all started off eating about 39% fat . At the end of the trial the people on the Med diet were eating about 41% fat with about 9% from saturated fat but the 'low' fat diet subjects were eating about 37% fat with about 9% from saturated fat. (in terms of grams I worked it out to be an average 98.8g fat in the Med group and 80g fat in the 'low fat group. ( If I've worked it out right then the difference amounts to about 30g of walnuts or just over a tablespoon full of olive oil)
predimed nutrients.JPG
Perhaps it's necessary to look at the Med pattern of eating which is what the researchers seemed to think was important. The second table shows what they called the 14 key elements of the med diet and the differences in intake between the groups. (even when the differences seem small almost all are statistically significant)
predimed diet differences.JPG
Maybe we should all start eating more solfrito sauce http://www.freelancestar.com/2014-0...y-with-sofrito-an-easy-and-healthy-condiment/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alliebee said:
I worked for many years as a theatre sister and I've seen arteries blocked ect. It isn't pretty. My closed friend a consultant cardiologist isa very interested in lchf. Indeed tells me he follows it himself and recommends his patients do now. The tide is turning I believe.
Click to expand...
Hi,@alliebee has your dear friend talked about the term lchf, being miss understood.
I know I am being rather pic-knitting but when you say blocked arteries,do you mean blood clots or plaque. It is the build up of plaque that concerns me with regard to what we eat.
You are right the tide is turning, yet I would like the water to be a lot clearer for us all to understand.
 
izzzi said:
Hi,@alliebee has your dear friend talked about the term lchf, being miss understood.
I know I am being rather pic-knitting but when you say blocked arteries,do you mean blood clots or plaque. It is the build up of plaque that concerns me with regard to what we eat.
You are right the tide is turning, yet I would like the water to be a lot clearer for us all to understand.
Click to expand...
Hi. You might want to have a look at this article in Dr Briffa's Blogs http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/12/02/...of-hdl-cholesterol-in-cardiovascular-disease/. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but at least he always lists references where possible to support what he says. The implication is that much of what has been said about eating sat fat and arterial plaque from blood cholesterol derived from eating high sat fat is circumstantial and not supported by any valid research. If anyone knows otherwise I would certainly like to improve my knowledge of a complex subject. The other related aspect is that the correlation between high blood cholesterol and risk of death is poor hence the continuing argument over the use of statins.
 
Daibell said:
Hi. You might want to have a look at this article in Dr Briffa's Blogs http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/12/02/...of-hdl-cholesterol-in-cardiovascular-disease/. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but at least he always lists references where possible to support what he says. The implication is that much of what has been said about eating sat fat and arterial plaque from blood cholesterol derived from eating high sat fat is circumstantial and not supported by any valid research. If anyone knows otherwise I would certainly like to improve my knowledge of a complex subject. The other related aspect is that the correlation between high blood cholesterol and risk of death is poor hence the continuing argument over the use of statins.
Click to expand...
Thanks @Daibell I found this to be very interesting. It is not so much a grey area as it used to be.
 
Back
Top