Please educate me on fats!

[bulkbiker]

Tannith has not done the ND. She has done 1000 calorie low fat diets. She is open about being a supporter of ND diet without having chosen to do it herself. I believe she calls her diet the 'wimps' version in her signature.

Sorry, you are quite right.

 

[bulkbiker]

Thanks for the tip. I was given the meter so it didn't cost me anything. I'll burn through these 50 tests and see how cheap I can get the strips Vs other meters. At this stage I just want to get a feel for my tolerance levels, my HbA1c this month was 41 so I'm doing alright but I've stopped the Metformin and want to push that down into the 30s.

If you carry on eating as you are (maybe reducing the carbs a bit more ) that should be fairly easily achievable.
My results from my mainly meat based diet are in my signature.

 

[Antje77]

Hi all,
May I remind everyone to stay on topic and remain polite?
I've already removed a few posts and I don't want to have to remove more.

 

[Oldvatr]

"High levels of FFAs have been proposed as a determinant factor in β-cells apoptosis in different models [50]. Also, recent studies suggest this phenomenon depends on the degree of fatty acid saturation, rather than chain length, in addition to being considered a contributing factor for T2D evolution in patients with obesity [51]. In β-cells, prolonged exposure to high concentrations of long chain FFAs leads to the inhibition of insulin biosynthesis [52] and secretion [53]"

"… Palmitic acid (16C) is the highest saturated fatty acid present in the human body. This fatty acid can reduce β-cell proliferation capacity and induce cell death [60…. Another report using pancreatic β-cell culture observed that SFAs including palmitic and stearic acid induce lipoapoptosis, whereas UFAs showed opposite effects. "

Effects of Dietary Fatty Acids in Pancreatic Beta Cell Metabolism, Implications in Homeostasis
Paloma Acosta-Montaño and Víctor García-González*

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29565831/

The linked paper here is a discussion document. What used to be called a prospective study in that the trial has not actually occurred, and this paper is published as a fund raising bucket list of aims and wishes. it is not evidence in any way or form (yet) When the study has completed then maybe there will be something to discuss, but at the moment it is pure fiction.

 

[Bubbleblower]

n=1 again but.

Make it n=2, I was also on a low fat "diet" and my tryglicerides were 2,7.
After adopting a LCHF diet it decreased to 1.0 and it is probably even lower by now.

Antje77's reply makes it n=3 and I don't think there is anybody on this forum who had an opposite result.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

Thanks. That's a much better appraisal of a book you seemingly haven't read. Anyway this is not constructive so let's agree to leave it there before we both get moderated. My original recommendation stands. I think it's a great book for anyone who wishes to learn about the history of the low fat dietary dogma.

You're right! I've not read it. Putting aside the fact that it seems to be an almost-wholly-derivative of Taubes' work, I have read enough of her articles, tweets etc. to know exactly why nobody should be reading her work. As I already said, the narrative she (and Taubes et al) expounds is blatantly and demonstrably false and falsifiable (As in, with evidence). Also, for balance, and despite having received it for free in a promotion, I've not read the Mastering Diabetes book. Largely for the same reasons i.e I've read enough of their article and seen enough of their videos. But more than that, I am also fed up of their falsifiable rhetoric.

As I keep saying, I think it's important to separated the results of the application of given advice from the rhetoric that is used to 'sell' it. This isn't just useful advice, but essential when considering how these false narratives gain momentum. Take this thread, for example. The OP has come here with very legitimate concerns about the idea of of going against more than six decades of heart-health information. They have asked to be educated. What they have received is many responses from laymen essentially telling them they shouldn't be concerned. The evidence for such a position is founded on the falsifiable narratives (Govt recommendations; Ancel Keys; the 1970's) that are normally held as truth. What it is not founded on is science that is any more robust or infallible than the science that the low-carb is so quick to dismiss.

To clarify: I'm not taking the diametrically-opposite position (Neither was Keys, by the way). While I think it's likely a good idea to hedge one's bets and limit saturated-fats, to a certain extent, i don't support the low-fat plant-based doctors' recommendations for 100% avoidance. The preponderance of evidence, purely at this point by virtue of relative quantity, is still on the side of lower saturated-fat.

My personal position is that going all-in on sat-fat is a gamble. If it's one you feel safe to take, that's your choice. But when it comes to advising complete strangers, on the internet, perhaps everyone here should consider caveating our advice.

My original recommendation stands. I think it's a great book for anyone who wishes to learn about the history of the low fat dietary dogma.

Personally, i think it's tantamount to anti-science. Here's some info, for starters:

https://thedietwars.com/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-1-by-seth-yoder/

https://thedietwars.com/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-2-by-seth-yoder/

 

[Oldvatr]

Recent Insights Into Mechanisms of β-Cell Lipo- and Glucolipotoxicity in Type 2 Diabetes
These studies demonstrated that acute and chronic elevations of FFAs by lipid infusion have differential effects on insulin secretion. Acute exposure enhances glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS), compensating for lipid-induced insulin resistance [9], [10]. In contrast, a more prolonged elevation of FFAs (24–48 h) causes β-cell function to deteriorate, impairing the ability of β-cells to compensate for the prevailing insulin resistance [9], [11], [12]. Significantly, when lipids are coinfused with glucose, the FFA elevation inhibits the stimulatory effect of hyperglycemia on β-cell function [13].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283619305716

of course the presence of FFA's inhibits hyperglycemia. This is known as the Pizza effect, and it is well known that fat delays the sugar surge by masking the carbs while the fats get refracted. There is consequently a delayed reaction in the beta cells so they are not so much damaged by SFA as they are being kept ignorant of the need for insulin.. In the experiment they kept the fat in the blood for up to 48 hours, so delayed the proper reaction even further, and the beta cells did not react because the carbs remained masked.

 

[Oldvatr]

Make it n=2, I was also on a low fat "diet" and my tryglicerides were 2,7.
After adopting a LCHF diet it decreased to 1.0 and it is probably even lower by now.

Antje77's reply makes it n=3 and I don't think there is anybody on this forum who had an opposite result.

n=4. My TC went from 7.8 down to 3.2.

 

[ziggy_w]

These studies demonstrated that acute and chronic elevations of FFAs by lipid infusion have differential effects on insulin secretion.

Hi @Tannith,

If you reread your own quote, you will notice that all these experiments have been done by "infusing" fatty acids directly into the blood. This is not the same thing as eating fat. Much of the fat in the blood comes from eating carbohydrates (especially fructose), the excess thereof being turned into blood fat through the process of de novo lipogenesis (especially if you are insulin resistant as most of us T2s are).

So, there is no direct 1:1 relationship between fat in the diet and fat in the blood. (The same way, we don't turn into chickens by eating chicken).

Btw -- personally, since starting low carb, all my blood lipid ratios have improved (though the total and LDL has stayed the same) and my fatty liver has gone (as probably my pancreatic fat). I believe, many other low carbers on this forum, have seen something similar.

 

[lucylocket61]

What they have received is many responses from laymen essentially telling them they shouldn't be concerned. The

Nope. The responses have contained personal stories, ideas to think about, and urging the op to do his own research.

My personal position is that going all-in on sat-fat is a gamble. If it's one you feel safe to take, that's your choice. But when it comes to advising complete strangers, on the internet, perhaps everyone here should consider caveating our advice.

Again, nope. This has not happened. Caveats about personal experience, testing for oneself, and making informed choices have been what is posted. No poster has said to eat unlimited vast quantities of fats, of any type.

Inform choices mean having information. People have expressed and pointed to by many ways of gathering information to make those choices, including things to think about.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

But when that advice works most people would be happy to try it you see.

We have hundreds (probably thousands) of people who have succeeded with LCHF.[/QUOTE]

As I keep trying to say, just because the program works doesn't mean that the explanations are solid.

When you are happy to share your results and come back having put your T2 into remission with your "mastering diabetes" protocol you will be listened too as well (assuming it works of course).

On many occasions I've linked to loads of anecdotes of people having had success, yet no one here has the slightest interest. Not sure why. Like @Jim Lahey points out, anecdotes are evidence; multiple anecdotes are data. So, I'm not convinced that my own =1 should tip the balance

@TannithYou seem very reluctant to put your theories into practise and I do have to wonder why that is.[/QUOTE]

There are a few reasons: Firstly, I already find the vegan diet restrictive enough, without having to cut out foods to the extent that their program advises. Moreover, I'm no longer convinced (Haven't been, for quite a while now) that there is anything magical about enforcing such strict restrictions, in terms of wither weight-loss or putting T2D into remission. But the biggest reason is that my wish to become the greatest/healthiest version of myself is at odds with me waking up on most days wishing that I hadn't. And seeing as I've rid myself of most of the vices I used to use to modulate mood etc., I am still prone to comfort-eating. And these days vegan ice-cream, cheese etc. is getting good enough to becoming almost iresistable.

But I am trying.

A combination of the various low-fat, high-carb protocols are scheduled for January (Tertiary-Phase), so not too long to wait

 

[lucylocket61]

@TannithYou seem very reluctant to put your theories into practise and I do have to wonder why that is.[/QUOTE]

There are a few reasons: Firstly, I already find the vegan diet restrictive enough, without having to cut out foods to the extent that their program advises. Moreover, I'm no longer convinced (Haven't been, for quite a while now) that there is anything magical about enforcing such strict restrictions, in terms of wither weight-loss or putting T2D into remission. But the biggest reason is that my wish to become the greatest/healthiest version of myself is at odds with me waking up on most days wishing that I hadn't. And seeing as I've rid myself of most of the vices I used to use to modulate mood etc., I am still prone to comfort-eating. And these days vegan ice-cream, cheese etc. is getting good enough to becoming almost iresistable.

But I am trying.

A combination of the various low-fat, high-carb protocols are scheduled for January (Tertiary-Phase), so not too long to wait [/QUOTE


?

Why have you linked tannith into @bulkbikers words you have quoted and replied as if they are addressed to you? The question was for tannith

 

[Dr Snoddy]

@Beating-My-Betes In terms of educating on fats, I would be very interested in knowing what has worked for you since you first started posting. Is your diabetes in remission? I am genuinely interested in all possible approaches and as we can really only quote what has worked for each of us all inputs of actual outcomes are useful. The end goal is the same for all of us no matter what the route.

 

[Oldvatr]

You're right! I've not read it. Putting aside the fact that it seems to be an almost-wholly-derivative of Taubes' work, I have read enough of her articles, tweets etc. to know exactly why nobody should be reading her work. As I already said, the narrative she (and Taubes et al) expounds is blatantly and demonstrably false and falsifiable (As in, with evidence). Also, for balance, and despite having received it for free in a promotion, I've not read the Mastering Diabetes book. Largely for the same reasons i.e I've read enough of their article and seen enough of their videos. But more than that, I am also fed up of their falsifiable rhetoric.

As I keep saying, I think it's important to separated the results of the application of given advice from the rhetoric that is used to 'sell' it. This isn't just useful advice, but essential when considering how these false narratives gain momentum. Take this thread, for example. The OP has come here with very legitimate concerns about the idea of of going against more than six decades of heart-health information. They have asked to be educated. What they have received is many responses from laymen essentially telling them they shouldn't be concerned. The evidence for such a position is founded on the falsifiable narratives (Govt recommendations; Ancel Keys; the 1970's) that are normally held as truth. What it is not founded on is science that is any more robust or infallible than the science that the low-carb is so quick to dismiss.

To clarify: I'm not taking the diametrically-opposite position (Neither was Keys, by the way). While I think it's likely a good idea to hedge one's bets and limit saturated-fats, to a certain extent, i don't support the low-fat plant-based doctors' recommendations for 100% avoidance. The preponderance of evidence, purely at this point by virtue of relative quantity, is still on the side of lower saturated-fat.

My personal position is that going all-in on sat-fat is a gamble. If it's one you feel safe to take, that's your choice. But when it comes to advising complete strangers, on the internet, perhaps everyone here should consider caveating our advice.



Personally, i think it's tantamount to anti-science. Here's some info, for starters:

https://thedietwars.com/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-1-by-seth-yoder/

https://thedietwars.com/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-2-by-seth-yoder/

Sorry. Your links to Seth Yoder show that he is a journalist, and has very little science basis in his critique. I would say he is also anti-science.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

Nope. The responses have contained personal stories, ideas to think about, and urging the op to do his own research.

Again, nope. This has not happened. Caveats about personal experience, testing for oneself, and making informed choices have been what is posted. No poster has said to eat unlimited vast quantities of fats, of any type.

Inform choices mean having information. People have expressed and pointed to by many ways of gathering information to make those choices, including things to think about.

The OP has been given advise, even by yourself, to research about the lies behind the low-fat agenda. This narrative is false and falsifiable, and therefore should not count as educating the OP

 

[lucylocket61]

The OP has been given advise, even by yourself, to research about the lies behind the low-fat agenda. This narrative is false and falsifiable, and therefore should not count as educating the OP

Ok, so you believe that anything against low fat is a lie? I understand your stance now. Note I say 'your stance' only.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

Sorry. Your links to Seth Yoder show that he is a journalist, and has very little scjence basis in his critique. I would say he is also anti-science.

The links were given in the hope that it might raise some red-flags for those who were curious to look past the standard rhetoric.

I don't have any issue with journalists, lay-people or anyone else disseminating information about science as long as it's done form a place of integrity and with the scientific-method in mind. If I gave the impression otherwise, then I apologise. And if you can point to anything specific in his critique, i'd happily give it a fresh-look (Maybe we could start a thread)

As an aside (and maybe i've really overestimated you), I'd be surprised you'd be able to read Teicholz, Taubes etc. without alarm-bells going off consistently. Tell em I'm wrong, and I'll leave you alone

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

Ok, so you believe that anything against low fat is a lie?

Nope! I've already been very clear that I not only do I think I'm not possessed of the truth, and that I think that for may reasons nobody is. I have lost faith in, and unfollowed (and will happily openly-criticise) those who make baseless claims in support of low-fat, also. I believe that just like low-carb, the reasons that it can be effective are often for different reason than the dogma would suggest.

I follow people who follow the science. That means, even as a vegan, I end up spending the majority of my time taking information from omnivores. I keep trying to say that I'm interested in getting to the truth, no matter how inconvenient.

 

[Oldvatr]

The links were given in the hope that it might raise some red-flags for those who were curious to look past the standard rhetoric.

I don't have any issue with journalists, lay-people or anyone else disseminating information about science as long as it's done form a place of integrity and with the scientific-method in mind. If I gave the impression otherwise, then I apologise. And if you can point to anything specific in his critique, i'd happily give it a fresh-look (Maybe we could start a thread)

As an aside (and maybe i've really overestimated you), I'd be surprised you'd be able to read Teicholz, Taubes etc. without alarm-bells going off consistently. Tell em I'm wrong, and I'll leave you alone

I have read neither of those persons works. I go by scientific study reports, and as you know I critique them as a matter of course.

Personally, when i went LCHF, i too had great difficulty with what the HF bit meant, and I authored a long discussion thread in this Forum. It contained a lot of scentific study reports that made sense, so eventually I started LCHF with moderate fat intake, and non keto. That was my choice and it worked for me.

I am on a minimum dose of diabetic medication. Again my choice since giving it up would mean I have to pay prescription charges and buy my own test strips. Money talks, and I ain't proud.

Last night I ate a meal of 2 beef steak, potatoes, broccoli, and beetroot and lashings of butter. It was a full large dinner plate piled up. My meter readings were
pre / 2hr / 4hr = 5.7 / 5.9 / 4.9

So I could probably claim remission, but i choose not to.

 

[Beating-My-Betes]

@Beating-My-Betes In terms of educating on fats, I would be very interested in knowing what has worked for you since you first started posting. Is your diabetes in remission? I am genuinely interested in all possible approaches and as we can really only quote what has worked for each of us all inputs of actual outcomes are useful. The end goal is the same for all of us no matter what the route.

I'm trying to make it clear that i'm not educating people on fats. I'm mostly scientifically illiterate, so don't feel confident in educating anyone. That doesn't mean I won't try to steer people away from that which is clearly, and evidently, disinformation (To caveat, I don't think it's being offered with any bad intentions).

As for my own experience: Just follow my blog. I'm determined this time, to follow my plan. If you have any questions, maybe ask me there - I don't want to keep on de-railing this thread (Also, you or anyone else is welcome to 'PM' me, if you want clarification on anything I might have said)